Appeal No. 2005-1416 Page 3
Application No. 09/771,782
We initially note that Appellant asserts that for purposes of appeal that the
claims do not stand or fall together. (Brief, p. 3). However, we find no separate
arguments as to the separate claims as required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2004).
Accordingly, all of the claims will stand or fall together and we select claim 37 as
representative of the claims on appeal and limit our consideration thereto.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in
support of their respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
Examiner's § 103 rejections are well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner has determined, Office action mailed March 31, 2003, that
Bateholts teaches the claimed method of making a necklace. (Bateholts , p. 1, Il.
1-10; figs 1-4). According to the Examiner, Bateholts discloses providing a mold of
beads for a necklace wherein the beads can be spherical or cylindrical and placing a
string or other line or cord in the mold. (Figs 1-4). The product produced by the
method of Bateholts is a necklace formed of beads directly molded onto the string or
line or cord. The Examiner asserted that Bateholts does not teach the beads as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007