Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
brief) that Pajon does not meet these limitations is also
unpersuasive. Although Pajon does not expressly describe the
pretensioner 6 as a cylinder/piston assembly, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized it as
such from the illustration thereof in Pajon’s drawings.
Consequently, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 3 and 10 as being anticipated by
Pajon.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 8 and 9 as being anticipated
by Pajon since the appellants have 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)).
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of independent claim 5 and its dependent
claims 6 and 15.
As indicated above, claim 5 requires the restraint member to
be “fixedly attached” to the free end of the arm. Since Pajon’s
restraint member (cross-member 5) is movably attached to the free
end of the Pajon’s arm (link 9) via the secondary groove 91 in
the arm and the cylindrical journal 51 on the restraint member,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007