Appeal No. 2005-1698 Page 7
Application No.09/775,425
teachings of Todd, meets the claim limitation at issue, regardless of whether it was
manufactured in a manner in which precautions were taken to ensure such.
For the foregoing reasons, the appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of any
error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Todd. The
appellants have not argued the like rejection of dependent claims 10 and 11 apart from
claim 1, thus permitting these claims to stand or fall with representative 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 rejection of claims 1, 10 and 11
as being anticipated by Todd is sustained.
The appellants’ argument with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 as
being unpatentable over Todd is based on the same argument discussed above with
respect to claim 1 and is likewise unpersuasive with regard to the subject matter of
claims 2, 3, 8 and 9. The appellants’ additional statement on page 17 of the brief that
the teachings of Todd are “completely contrary “ to the structure of appellants’ preferred
embodiment because Todd teaches that “the fascia material may be extended
completely around the base material 24 to completely enclose the material” (column 3,
lines 39-41) is not well taken. This disclosure of Todd is directed not to the wheel
construction, wherein the component at issue comprises openings, as discussed above,
but to other components, such as dashboards or instrument panels, which do not
include openings. The rejection of claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007