Appeal No. 2003-0087 14
Application No. 09/512,164
appellants have failed to separately argue the patentability of claim 6 with any reasonable
specificity. It therefore falls with claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201
USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979). The standing rejection of claim 7 will also be sustained since
appellants state that claims 6 and 7 stand or fall together.
Claim 9
With reference to appellants’ Figures 4 and 5, independent claim 9 sets forth,
among other things, a cylindrical member 82 mounted for longitudinal movement with the
casing 67, a holding means 92 disposed on or attachable with the cylindrical member for
preventing movement of the cylindrical member greater than a predetermined distance
through an opening in the casing, and stop means 94 mounted on sidewalls of the
cylindrical member for preventing movement of the cylindrical member greater that a
predetermined distance through the opening in the casing.
The examiner concedes that the actuators of Fontaine and Pierce do not include a
stop means as called for in claim 9. The examiner takes the position, however, that
Graham “provides a stop means on the end of the spring member (90) for preventing the
movement of the cylindrical member (146) greater than a predetermined distance through
the opening in the casing” (answer, page 6), and that it would have been obvious in view
of this teaching to provide Fontaine’s actuator with a stop means as claimed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007