Appeal No. 97-2821
Application 08/377,720
retaining discharged sausages.
Thus, to the extent that it has been argued by the appellant, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Herold.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of dependent claims 4, 6 and 8
as being anticipated by Herold since the appellant has not argued such with any reasonable specificity,
thereby allowing these claims to fall with independent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) rejection of claims 9, 10, 12 and 13, the appellant’s
sole arguments are that the examiner has not identified the elements disclosed by Herold that allegedly
correspond to the claimed conversion kit and, with specific regard to claim 12, that the examiner has
failed to identify in Herold a disposable manifold unit (see pages 5 and 6 in the brief). The examiner,
however, has in fact identified the elements disclosed by Herold which are considered to correspond to
the claimed conversion kit (see pages 3 and 5 in the answer). Moreover, the disposable manifold unit
limitations in claim 12 are virtually identical to those recited in claim 1 and are met by Herold for the
same reasons.
Accordingly and to the extent that it has been argued by the appellant, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 9, 10, 12 and 13 as being anticipated by Herold.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007