Appeal No. 2003-1141
Application 09/572,745
Claims 6 and 26, which depend directly and indirectly from
independent claim 1, and claim 11, which depends directly from
independent claim 10, recite that the pump casing has an inner
wall portion gradually decreasing in diameter toward the inlet
port and that guiding blades associated with the rotational
member are disposed in the casing at a position corresponding to
a space in the casing surrounded by the inner wall portion. Here
again, the examiner has failed to explain, and it is not evident,
how or why Muhlhoff teaches or would have suggested a vacuum pump
comprising this arrangement.
Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 6, 11 and 26 as being unpatentable over
Muhlhoff.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 3 through 5, 7 through 9, 13
through 16, 22, 24, 25 and 27 as being unpatentable over Muhlhoff
since the appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with
their respective independent claims (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007