Appeal No. 2000-0496
Serial No. 08/795,626
THE REJECTION
Claims 3-7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of JP ‘212, Vross
and Ray.3
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection. Because our
rationale differs substantially from that of the examiner, we
denominate the affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection
under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall together
(brief, page 3). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim,
i.e., claim 10, which is the sole independent claim. See In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
JP ‘212 discloses a welding fume collector which is shown as
having wheels and, therefore, being portable (figure 1a). The
welding fume collector has a single mobile chamber housing
3 In the examiner’s answer (page 6) the examiner relies upon
U.S. 4,350,504 to Diachuk. This reference is not included in the
statement of the rejection and, therefore, is not properly before
us. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n.3 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we do not consider this reference
in reaching our decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007