Appeal No. 98-1523 Page 8
Application No. 08/705,744
the separate patentability of these claims and therefore,
claims 20, 23 through 25 and 27 stand or fall with claim 18.
See Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 18
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable as
anticipated by Azibert ‘496. It is the examiner’s opinion
that Azibert ‘496 discloses all the features of the claimed
invention as illustrated in Figures 4 and 4a.
Appellant argues that Azibert ‘496 does not disclose an
axial extension from the radial seal surface of the clip at
the bolt end nor a clip pin.
We do not agree with the appellant. In Fig. 4a, the clip
or tab 72 has a seal end which engages the seal gland 70 at
74. In addition, the bolt end of the clip (See Fig. 2b) has
an axial extension extending from the radial seal surface.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 18. We will also sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 19, 20, 23 through 25 and 27 as the
appellant has failed to argue the separate patentability of
these claims. See Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at
1528.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007