Appeal No. 2003-1825 Page 5
Application No. 09/672,492
structurally. Moreover, the assertion of a functional difference
by appellant at page 9 of the brief is made without identifying
the claimed functional difference and without explaining how that
alleged difference establishes a structural difference.
Consequently, we do not find those unsubstantiated contentions
persuasive on this record.
We also agree with the examiner’s rebuttal of appellant’s
argument that there is no association of a rigid mounting ring
with the lug of Brookhyser as set forth at page 6 of the answer.
Consequently, we shall sustain the examiner’s § 102(b) rejection.
§ 103(a) Rejection
At the outset, we note that appellant has not separately
argued the patentability of each of the claims subject to the §
103(a) rejection. Consequently, we select claim 2 as the
representative claim on which we shall decide this appeal as to
that rejection. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(2000).
Representative dependent claim 2 requires that the coupling
device of claim 1 be of metal construction.
Appellant contests the examiner’s obviousness determinations
with respect to the § 103(a) rejection by repeating the rigid
ring argument that was not found convincing, as discussed above.
Appellant further contends, in essence, that neither Brookhyser
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007