Appeal No. 2003-1474
Application No. 09/024,631
Consistent with this indication, Appellant has made no separate
arguments with respect to the remaining claims. Accordingly, all
the claims will stand or fall together, and we will select claim
1, the broadest independent claim as representative of all of the
claims on appeal. Note In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48
USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It reads as follows:
1. A shaving apparatus comprising at least two shaving
heads, each having an external cutting member and an internal
cutting member which is drivable relative to said external cutting
member, each external cutting member having at least one shaving
field consisting of hair-entry apertures of a first shape for
cutting long hairs and at least one shaving field consisting of
hair-entry apertures of a second shape for cutting short hairs,
wherein, in at least two adjacent external cutting members, the
shaving fields are arranged to form an area wherein shaving fields
consisting of hair-entry apertures of the same shape are located
proximate to each other.
The References
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner relies upon the following references:
Driessen et al. (Driessen) 3,564,715 Feb. 23, 1971
Bakker et al. (Bakker) 4,168,570 Sep. 25, 1979
The Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bakker in view of Driessen.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007