Appeal No. 2005-1335 Page 5
Application No. 10/128,266
advantage of the manufacturing and structural integrity benefits
discussed by Schwaner. As so modified in light of the Schwaner
embodiment having ten integrally formed pieces, each consisting
of two hexagonal portions, the Schaper ball would respond to all
of the limitations in claim 1 including the one requiring a
bridged panel formed of two seamlessly-joined hexagonal portions.
The appellant’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive
because they focus on the Schwaner embodiment having one
integrally formed piece consisting of twenty hexagonal portions
to the exclusion of the embodiment having the ten integrally
formed portions.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable
over Schaper in view of Schwaner.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 10 as being unpatentable
over Schaper in view of Schwaner since the appellant has not
challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing
these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 1 (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007