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we will, for purposes of this appeal, consider the examiner's rejection under § 112, first paragraph to have been withdrawn. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007