Appeal No. 2005-0117 Page 12
Application No. 09/860,423
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 to 9, 14 to 22 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed since the appellants have not argued separately the
patentability of any particular claim apart from the others, thus allowing claims 2 to 9, 14
to 22 and 27 to fall with claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140
(CCPA 1978)).
Rejection 2
We sustain the rejection of claims 10 to 12 and 23 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In this rejection, the examiner proposes to combine the closure device of Andrieu
as modified by Holland, and the plurality of axially compressible and radially expansible
devices of Kite (see Figure 3). The appellants argue (brief, p. 9) that:
As argued above, Andrieu et al. cannot be properly modified by Holland et al.
Further, the Examiner again provides no explanation how or why one of ordinary
skill would be motivated to modify Andrieu et al., and there is no teaching,
suggestion, or motivation in Andrieu et al. for such a modification.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007