Appeal No. 2005-0687
Application No. 10/097,510
Appealed claims 20-32, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 40 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted
prior art in view of Lakin. Claims 15 and 17-19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted
prior art in view of Lakin and Fruhstorfer. Also, claims 39 and
41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the admitted prior art in view of Lakin and Williams.
Appellant submits at page 8 of the principal brief that
claims 15, 17 and 19 stand or fall together with claim 18, but
states that "[e]ach of claims 18, 20-35, and 37-41 are [sic, is]
separately patentable." However, we agree with the examiner that
appellant has failed to present substantive arguments for the
patentability of each of claims 18, 20-32, 34, 35 and 37-41.1
Statements such as "each of dependent claims 21, 22, 23, and 24
recite [sic, recites] additional structural features of the
bearing cap of the invention" (page 11 of principal brief, third
paragraph) do not meet the requirements for separate arguments
which explain why the claimed features would have been
nonobviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art. See 37 CFR
1 The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 33
although the inclusion of claim 33 was mistakenly made in the
statement of the rejection (see page 3 of Answer, paragraphs
numbered (10) and (11).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007