Appeal No. 2006-1848
Application No. 10/352,360
portion of the open side of the trailer would have to be enlarged to
completely cover this opening to prevent debris from falling on the
roadway. We thus conclude that based on these teachings of the prior
art, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have viewed the subject matter of claim 11 as a
whole to have been obvious in view of the prior art.
C. Dependent Claims 7-9, 12-18
The appellant did not separately argue the patentability of these
dependent claims. Rather, he relied on his arguments of patentability
for independent claims 6 and 11. Finding no argument for the
separate patentability of these claims, they fall with independent
claims 6 and 11. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USQP2d 1596 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). As such, because we affirm the examiner’s rejection of
the independent claims, we also affirm the rejection of these
dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, for the reasons set forth above, we affirm the
rejection of claims 6-9 and 11-18.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007