Appeal 2006-1042
Application 10/208,131
this fold is not formed directly by L-shaped corner piece 30 at a point
between piece 30 and outermost profiled section 8. However, this is not
required by claim 9 as previously explained.
Claims 10 through 13, ultimately dependent from claim 9, were not
separately argued and, therefore, stand or fall with claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipatory rejection of
claims 9 through 13 over Barut.
Independent claim 18 differs from independent claim 1 in that it does
not require the pivoting function of the skis. However, like claim 9, it
requires a material guide.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 18 mirror their arguments
regarding claim 9. We have already found these arguments unpersuasive
and refer to our discussion above in response.
Claims 19 through 30, which ultimately depend from claim 18, were
not separately argued and, therefore, stand or fall with claim 18.
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Barut for the
reasons given above.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007