Appeal No. 2000-0165
Application No. 08/783,693
remainder of the independent claims on appeal is not limited
to “only” the sealing interfaces between the two separate
objects, we find that independent claims 5, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23
and 27 read on the teachings of Smith. Appellant’s arguments
(brief, pages 3 and 4; reply brief, page 1) to the contrary
notwithstanding, the noted independent claims on appeal do not
preclude forming the composite of the adhesive and the sealant
“at the factory” as opposed to at a “repair” site. Stated
differently, the referenced claims are not limited to a
“repair” process after disassembly of the protective closure.
Thus, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 5, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23
and 27 is sustained. In a multiple reference rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone
without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re
Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In
re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA
1966). In view of the lack of separate patentability
arguments for the claims that depend from these independent
claims, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 6, 8 through 10, 12
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007