Appeal No. 2002-0074 Page 15
Application No. 08/800,758
F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Thus, we sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 12
With respect to dependent claim 12, the appellants argue (brief, p. 7) that the
limitation "one of the stages of said moving structure which stage is level with said one
of said placing stages of said vertical installation structure" is not met by Evans. We do
not agree for the reasons adequately set forth above with respect to parent claim 11.
Clearly, the stringers 30 of Evans which are shown as receiving casket 22 from the
upper conveyor 50 of pallet 24 in Figure 1 are level with one another. Thus, we sustain
the examiner's rejection of appealed claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 13
Claim 13 which depends from claim 12 has not been separately argued by
appellants as required in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(iv). Accordingly, we have
determined that claim 13 must be treated as falling with claim 13. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, it follows that we
sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007