Appeal No. 2001-0734
Application 09/071,264
recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make
a claim to that old product patentable."
Finding nothing in independent claims 31 and 44 on appeal
which is not also present in Pollock ‘386, and no persuasive
argument from appellants as to any distinguishing structure, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pollock ‘386.
Regarding claims 32 through 41 which depend from claim 31
and claims 45 through 49 which depend from claim 44, we note that
appellants have not presented any separate argument for the
patentability of these claims apart from that which was presented
with regard to the independent claims (note, for example, the
first paragraph on page 10 of the brief). Accordingly, we
consider these dependent claims (i.e., claims 32 through 41 and
45 through 49) to fall with the respective parent claim from
which they depend.
On page 10 of their brief, appellant’s have presented
separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 42, 50 and
51. Like appellants, we find that Pollock ‘386 does not disclose
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007