Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
the patentability of these dependent claims has not been
argued separately of the claims from which they depend.
See Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528 and
Burckel, 592 F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at 70. Merely
reiterating what each of these dependent claims recites
(see page 20 of the main brief) or stating that these
dependent claims are considered to patentably distinct from
their parent claims (see page 20 of the main brief) does
not amount to an argument that these dependent claims are
patentable separately of the claims from which they depend.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 19 based on
Giladi in view of Cepparo. The “means to drive said
vehicle” necessarily includes the vehicle’s engine, and
there is no teaching or suggestion in the applied
references of including such a drive means in or on the
platforms.10
In addition, we will not sustain (1) the rejection of
claims 1, 15 and 17-20 based on Giladi in view of Martin,
(2) the rejection of claims 2-5, 8-10 and 16 based on
Giladi in view of Martin and Kishi and (3) the rejection of
claim 7 based on Giladi in view of Martin and Harrison.
The only way the examiner could have applied the teachings
10 Claim 19 is the subject of a new ground of rejection
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007