Appeal No. 2001-2595
Application 09/245,640
Since appellant’s arguments have not convinced us of any
error in the examiner’s position regarding the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hennessey in view of Meyer, we will sustain the
rejection of those claims. In addition, since appellant has not
specifically argued for the separate patentability of claims 19,
22, 27, 29 and 33, we conclude that those claims will fall with
their respective independent claim. See, 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)
and (c)(8)(iv) and In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199
USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 1312,
177 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA 1973).
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3,
20, 24, 26 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hennessey in view of Meyer as applied above, and further in
view of Peterson, we look first to claim 3. This claim sets
forth that the work piece holder or holders of claim 1 are
“selected from a collection of work piece holders comprising an
arc block, a dowel, and a V-block.” Since Hennessey clearly
discloses a work holder in the form of dowels (P) and Meyer
discloses a bench stop (Fig. 11) that we broadly consider to be a
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007