Appeal No. 2003-1625
Application No. 09/341,669
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Wanat.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Numrich.
Claims 14-16, 18, 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over, Wanat.
Finally, claims 14-16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by, or
alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over,
Numrich.
On page 3 of the brief, the appellants indicate that the
appealed claims do not stand or fall together. However, as
correctly indicated by the examiner on page 2 of the answer, the
appellants have failed to present separate arguments as to why
commonly rejected claims are individually patentable as required
by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2002). See In re Dance, 160 F.3d
1339, 1340 n.2, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and Ex
parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
In this regard, it is significant that the examiner’s position on
this matter has not been contested by the appellants in the reply
brief filed April 18, 2003 in response to the examiner’s answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007