Appeal No. 1999-0972 Application 08/724,340 inherency. Since all of the other limitations in claim 1, including the width dimension of “between about one and about eight inches,” read on Gay’s insulation assembly, the examiner’s determination that the subject matter recited in this claim is anticipated by Gay is well founded. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Gay. We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of dependent claims 2 through 6, 9 through 11 and 19 through 24 as being anticipated by Gay since the appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). As for the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 16 and 18 through 26, Grant discloses a multiple conformable insulation assembly 60 comprising at least two 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007