Appeal 2006-1263
Application 10/173,259
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 6,
10-12, 14-18 and 20 because the Appellants have not argued the separate
patentability of these claims. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn next to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monk in view of Rice and
Mumford
Appellants rely on the same argument as stated above and therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 19 for the same reasons
as stated above.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that Monk as
modified by Rice does not teach or suggest each and every claim limitation
so as to result in the claim 1 requirement for “each bushing is of
substantially elliptical right section . . . .”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013