Appeal No. 2005-1069
Application No. 10/061,137
lines 45-46). Wherever the student prepares the fossils
qualifies as the broadly claimed "simulated preparation
facility." We also note that Deaton expressly discloses that
"[a] further object of this invention is to provide a
paleontological and archeological educational article, which aids
in the teaching of preparation techniques of fossils" (column 1,
lines 30-32, emphasis added). As a point of emphasis, our
conclusion that Deaton describes the educational system of
appealed claim 1 is based on the fact that the recited "simulated
collection area," "geographic locale," "bulk collection
material," and "simulated preparation facility" are broadly
defined with no specific structure or characteristics assigned
thereto. Appellant has not explained any substantive distinction
between the aforementioned recited terms and the components of
the Deaton system.
As for separately rejected claims 11 and 17-20 over Deaton
in view of Serge and Smith, appellant relies only upon the
arguments advanced for the claims upon which claims 11 and 17-20
depend. Hence, appellant has not set forth a separate
substantive argument for the features of claims 11 and 17-20.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007