Appeal No. 2003-0421
Application No. 09/508,793
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
hinge between a side piece wire part 2 and an end piece wire part
1 of a frame of a pair of glasses, where one of the wire parts is
bent in the form of a hairpin comprising two branches 4,5
connected by crosspiece 10 and bearing hinge body 6 between the
two branches (Brief, pages 2-3). The hinge body 6 defines a
coaxial peripheral groove 7, and the other wire part 1 has an end
bent eyelet 8 having peripheral opening 12, where eyelet 8
elastically engages peripheral groove 7 and locks hinge body 6 in
position, with crosspiece 10 gripping the outside of eyelet 8
(Brief, page 3).
Appellants state that “claim 6 is patentable, and claims 7
and 9 are allowable therewith.” Brief, page 6. We construe this
statement as meaning that the claims stand or fall together,
especially since there are no specific arguments in the Brief or
Reply Briefs for the separate patentability of claims 7 and 9.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000). Accordingly, we select claim 6
from the grouping of claims and decide the ground of rejection in
this appeal on the basis of this claim alone. See In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Representative independent claim 6 is reproduced below:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007