Appeal 2006-2970
Application 09/224,340
Aug. 2001) ("any rejection not repeated and not discussed in the answer may
be taken by the Board as having been withdrawn"). In any case, the
rejection would be reversed. Normal screws, when tightened, exert a force
which increases with the amount of tightening. Applicant discloses that
special screws have a "clutch" which slips so that the screws can be turned
without further tightening to apply a predetermined amount of force
(Specification 10, ll. 14-15). Claims 4 and 5 are definite.
DISCUSSION
Claims do not stand or fall together
The Examiner states that the claims stand or fall together because
Appellant's Brief does not include a statement that the claims do not stand or
fall together and reasons in support thereof (Answer 2). Appellant refers to
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) and states that the grouping of claims was specified
and the claims were separately argued (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant has separately argued the claim groups at Brief 5-6. Thus,
the claims are grouped as argued.
Anticipation -- Mazura
Group I - claims 1, 13, 16, 17, and 22
Initially, we note that there is no contention that Mazura does not have
"slots." The claims do not define any structure for the PCB modules and the
chassis. For example, the claims do not say that the "slots" are defined by
vertical strips between an upper and lower horizontal beam as shown in
Appellant's Figure 3. The "slots" could just be locations for inserting PCB
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013