Ex Parte DIMARCO - Page 4



                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                be taken by the Board as having been withdrawn").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