Appeal No. 98-1458 Page 14
Application No. 08/499,211
In response to the appellants' argument (brief, p. 13)
that the "overlapping serpentine shape" of the hook-like
projection is not suggested by the teachings of the applied
prior art, the examiner noted (answer, p. 6) that the
"overlapping serpentine shape" of the hook-like projection is
old and well known as shown in prior art that was not applied
by the examiner. Since the applied prior art does not teach
the "overlapping serpentine shape" of the hook-like
projection, we are constrained to reverse the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 10.
Claims 7 through 9 and 25
The appellants have grouped claims 7 through 9 and 25 as
standing or falling together with claim 1. In addition, 4
dependent claims 7 through 9 and 25 have not been separately
argued by the appellants. Accordingly, these claims will be
treated as falling with their parent claim (i.e., claim 1).
See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
4See page 4 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007