Ex parte ALLWEIN et al. - Page 6




          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                  


                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007