Appeal No. 1997-4356
Application No. 08/458,628
Appellants request at page 4 of the brief that
"patentability of the pending claims be separately considered."
However, appellants have not advanced an argument that is
reasonably specific to any claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 10. In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). See also
37 CFR 1.192 c(7) and c(8) (1995).
All the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Japanese '828.1
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the
examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior art as
well as his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by
appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner's reasoning
as our own in sustaining the rejection of record, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Japanese '828 discloses "a vibration dampening
1 Inasmuch as the examiner has not included the final rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in the answer's
statement of the rejection, and the examiner has not responded to appellants'
rebuttal of the rejection in the brief, we will, for purposes of this appeal,
consider the examiner's rejection under § 112, first paragraph to have been
withdrawn.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007