Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
invention from the disclosure of Seymour considered with either
Kuster or McMaster. We affirm.
OPINION
Appellants have failed to argue with any reasonable degree
of specificity the patentability of any dependent claim. Further,
on page 3 of their brief, appellants state that claims 5 through
8 and 10 are considered to stand or fall together. We shall
decide this appeal based on the patentability of independent
claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 (c)(7), first sentence.
Accordingly, the patentability of all the claims stands or falls
with independent claim 10 on which they depend. In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ 640, 642 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We begin by analyzing the scope and content of appellants'
claims. Appellants claim a method for shaping a glass sheet
heated nearly to the sheet's softening point. Appellants method
utilizes a shaping mold having respective first and second
shaping surfaces and which also include corresponding separate
first and second vacuum chambers. We refer to appellants'
specification at page 8, line 5 through page 9, line 22; page 11,
lines 7 through 15 and to Figures 2, 4 and 5 of the drawings for
an explanation of the details of suitable shaping molds for use
in the second step of appellants' process. In the third step of
the claimed process a first vacuum is generated in the first
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007