Appeal No. 98-0409
Application 08/420,480
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 10, 11 and 14 based on Goss. Our
reasons for these determinations follow.
The appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 16-19
with an reason-able degree of specificity. Accordingly, these
claims will
stand or fall with the independent claim from which they
depend. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Considering first the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Goss, the
appellants argue that "Goss does not disclose a centrally
positioned segment with a integral border portion extending
outwardly from said segment" (brief, page 6). We do not
agree. As the examiner has noted, the clasps or slides P of
Goss, in conjunction with the portion of the "ordinary belt" A
(page 1, column 2, lines 4, 8 and 9) to which they are
attached, can be considered to form the "segments." Clearly,
the upper and lower portions of the belt A extend "outwardly"
from the slides or clasps P (see, Fig. 3). As to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007