Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
does not disclose a loading station including “a separate pushing
of the container from the ready position to operably engage the
transport conveyor.” (Brief, p. 11). The problem is that the
language of claim 9, the claim I select to represent the issues,
does not recite any structure different from that of Winn. The
words “for ...” do not provide clear structural limitations on the
loading station.
I, therefore, conclude that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
of claims 9 and 20 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
appellant.
Other claims
With regard to the other claims, they stand or fall with the
claims from which they depend. This is because the Brief does not
(1) include a statement that those claims do not stand or fall
together and (2) reasons in support thereof. Both requirements
must be met to assure separate review. See 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7)(1997); In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d
1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Issue 2: The rejection over Winn, Lam, Reichert, Baker and Matsunga
To reject claims 6, 7, 17, and 18, the examiner adds Matsunga.
Appellant advances no additional arguments over and above those I
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007