Appeal No. 2004-1361
Application No. 09/430,574
Concerning the third argued distinction, the appellant
contends that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art knows that
there is a significant difference between a mere tube end [such
as Schnell’s tube end 179] and an end-form of a tube: an end-form
requires some special forming operation such as swaging annular
grooves in the tube” (brief, page 7). The record, however,
contains no evidence to substantiate this contention. The
recitation of the “end-form,” given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification,
finds response in the end 179 of Schnell’s tube.
Thus, the appellant’s position that the subject matter
recited in claim 1 distinguishes over that disclosed by Schnell
is not convincing. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Schnell.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of dependent claims 2 and 5 as being anticipated by
Schnell as the appellant has not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or
fall with parent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
SUMMARY
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007