Appeal No. 2003-1336 Page 7
Application No. 09/642,398
Independent claim 25 recites that the hole pattern is configured to define “a clear
path from beyond said clamp to said workpiece.” On the basis of the reasoning we
applied above with regard to claim 23, the Section 102 rejection of claim 25 also is
sustained.
Claim 26 requires that the hole pattern in the first block include “at least one
channel in a surface of said first block.” We agree with the appellants that this feature
is not disclosed in Hennessey. This being the case, Hennessey does not anticipate the
subject matter of claim 26, and the rejection of claim 26 and dependent claim 27 cannot
be sustained.
As for independent claim 28, it is our view that the hole pattern of Hennessey’s
blocks are configured in such a fashion as to be capable of receiving a portion of a
workpiece therein. The only argument advanced by the appellants concerns this
feature, and we are not persuaded by it that the rejection shouldn’t be sustained.
Independent claim 29 requires that the first hole pattern include at least one hole
“configured to align with a fastening feature of the workpiece,” and independent claim
30 that it align with “a sealing feature of a workpiece.” Again, we are of the opinion that
the blocks disclosed by Hennessey have the capability to be so aligned, and we thus
will sustain the Section 102 rejection of both of these claims.
In arriving at the foregoing conclusions, we have carefully considered all of the
appellants’ arguments as they might apply to the claims the rejections of which we have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007