Appeal No. 2003-0087 13
Application No. 09/512,164
described by appellants is the bolt/nut arrangement 66 shown in Figure 4 (specification,
page 10, lines 3-13). The examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us, where
in the combined teachings of Fontaine and Pierce any such bolt/nut arrangement or
equivalent thereof is disclosed or suggested. We therefore conclude that a prima facie
case of obviousness has not been made out as to claim 4. It follows that we cannot
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 2 and recites, among other things, a sealing means
positioned between the casing and the piston arrangement for preventing leakage of air.
In rejecting this claim, the examiner further relies on Ryburn for a teaching of a seal 285
between a casing and a piston arrangement for preventing leakage of air.
Appellants’ sole argument against the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 is found on
page 11 of the main brief and reads as follows:
Ryburn et al is cited as providing a seal between the
casing and piston arrangement. However, the combination of
Fontaine with Pierce et al fail[s] to meet the limitations of claim
1. It is Applicant’s position that the addition of Ryburn et al to
the rejection does not overcome the deficiencies of the original
combination of Fontaine with Pierce et al.
From the above it is clear that appellants have not made a separate argument for
patentability specifically directed to claim 6. Instead, appellants are content with asserting
that claim 6 is patentable because it includes the limitations of base claim 1. In short,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007