Ex Parte DUCK et al - Page 3




          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          withdrawn.                                                                  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