Appeal No. 1998-1266 Page 8
Application No. 08/354,459
produced by the formation of the initial hole. See column 3,
lines 16-21, of the Hirabayashi specification.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 5. We will also sustain the § 103
rejection of dependent claims 3, 6 and 8 since these dependent
claims have not been argued separately of claim 5 and, instead,
are stated on page 2 of the main brief to stand or fall with
claim 5. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) as amended effective April
21, 1995. See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642,
199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
However, we cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of
dependent claim 7. We find no teaching or suggestion in
Hirabayashi that the parallel movement of the cutting tool to
chamfer the top and bottom corner edges of the hole drilled
through the glass plate will result in the removal of
substantially all of the damage caused by initially forming the
hole as required by the combined subject matter of claims 5 and
7.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007