Appeal No. 96-0948 Page 7
Application No. 08/262,400
In view of the fact that the appellants have chosen not
to challenge with any reasonable specificity before this Board
the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 22, they
are grouped with independent claim 1, from which they depend,
and fall therewith. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 2
USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The appellants have advanced two arguments with regard to
the rejection of independent claim 12. The first of these is
the same as was discussed above with regard to claim 1, that
is, that the Sud boresight target generator is not internal.
We do not agree, for the reasons discussed above. The second
argument is that Sud is not a “common aperture” system, as
required by claim 12 (Brief, page 4). Be begin our evaluation
of this issue by pointing out that the definition of a ”common
aperture” system has not explicitly been set forth in the
appellants’ specification, nor has any component of the system
been identified as the “common aperture.” Two clues are
provided, however, that lead us to believe that the “common
aperture” is the telescope, in which case the Sud device meets
the terms of the claim. The first clue is found on page 2 of
the specification, where it is explained that most current
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007