Appeal No. 2005-0993 Page 8
Application No. 10/056,156
inherently capable of escaping along Blatter's unobstructed path and as such Blatter
discloses an unobstructed moisture escape path.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 3 and 5 to 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is also affirmed since the appellant has not argued separately the patentability
of any particular claim apart from the others, thus allowing claims 2, 3 and 5 to 7 to fall
with claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)).
The anticipation rejection based on Strebinger
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 9 to 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Strebinger.
1(...continued)
presumptively different in scope), claim 1 does not require that both ends of the
unobstructed moisture escape path are open to atmosphere.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007