Appeal No. 2003-0510
Application No. 09/524,904
particular claim. Therefore, claims 1-12, 14-16, 19 and 20 shall
stand or fall together in accordance with the success or failure
of the arguments directed thereto. See In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d
1307, 1309-10, 177 USPQ 170, 172 (CCPA 1973); In re Wood, 582
F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); and In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
II. Claims 1-12, 14-16, 19 and 20
Representative claim 1 calls for, among other things, an
indexable rotatable cross blade (appellants’ element 60)
removably mounted to the inside of the tie plate (appellants’
element 56) substantially transverse to the lower shear blade and
to the guide blade, the cross blade having four cutting surfaces
for successive exposure and shearing.
In rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over Sederberg in
view of Ramun, the examiner found (answer, page 3) that Sederberg
discloses a heavy-duty demolition apparatus comprising a lower
jaw 14 and an upper jaw 16 and pivot means 18 interconnecting the
jaws, the lower jaw having shearing blades 64, 66 and the upper
jaw having shearing blades 114, 116, the lower jaw also having a
rigid guide blade 34, a tie plate 90 securing the outer ends of
the lower shear blade and the guide blade together, an open slot
92 between the lower shear blade and the guide plate to receive
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007