Appeal No. 2005-0687
Application No. 10/097,510
§ 1.192(c)(7) (2002). Accordingly, we agree with the examiner
that the following groups of claims stand or fall together:
(I) claims 15 and 17-19; (II) claims 20-24; (III) claims 25-29;
(IV) claims 30 and 31); (V) claims 32, 34, 35, 37 and 40; and
(VI) claims 39 and 41.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
In essence, we concur with the examiner's assessment that
there are structural differences between the prior art of record
and the preferred embodiment of appellant's invention, but the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims on appeal
results in lubricant retention assemblies that would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
applied prior art. Consequently, appellant's arguments set forth
in the principal and reply briefs are not commensurate in scope
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007