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Aug. 2001) ("any rejection not repeated and not discussed in the answer may be taken by the Board as having been withdrawn").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