Appeal No. 1998-2416
Application 08/586,807
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)), we shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 26 as being
unpatentable over Todd in view of Zimmermann.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 9 through 12, which depend from claim 26,
as being unpatentable over Todd in view of Zimmermann since
the appellants have not argued such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall
with their parent claim (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
V. Additional matter for the examiner’s consideration
Upon return of the application to the technology center,
the examiner should reassess the patentability of the claims
pending in this application considering that at least the
broader claim
limitations relating to the machine tool enclosure are
probably readable on a common factory building or room which
presumably would house an operational machine tool. Taking
claim 21 as an example, it is quite conventional to mount
machine tools on vibration isolators as evidenced by U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,052,510,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007