Appeal 2007-0020
Application 10/680,510
The Appellants’ arguments as to why it would not have been obvious to
1) substitute the flange shapes of Du Pree or JP ‘432 for that of JP ‘093, 2) use a
hexagonal shaped flange, or 3) use a flange having an apex diametrically opposed
from the center of a straight side are comparable to those discussed above with
respect to the rejections over Collette in view of Du Pree or JP ‘432 (Br. 26-35;
Reply Br. 12-15). We therefore incorporate regarding the rejections over JP ‘093
in view of Du Pree or JP ‘432 our reasoning and decisions set forth above with
respect to the rejections over Collette in view of Du Pree or JP ‘423.
Rejection over JP ‘093 in view of Du Pree or JP ‘432, further
in view of Collette or the Appellants’ admitted prior art
The Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of dependent claims 38-41, 61-64 and 82-84 (Br. 35-36). Claims 38-
41 and 61-64 therefore, stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. The
claims from which claims 82-84 directly or indirectly depend, i.e., claims 74-76
and 79-81, are not rejected over JP ‘093 in view of Du Pree or JP ‘432, further in
view of Collette or the Appellants’ admitted prior art. The Appellants have not
separately addressed the rejection of claims 82-84 over JP ‘093 in view of Du Pree
or JP ‘432, further in view of Collette or the Appellants’ admitted prior art and,
therefore, have not convinced us of error in those rejections.4
DECISION
The rejection of claims 28-42, 52, 59, 74-76 and 79-84 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed. The rejections of claims 28-42,
4 Claim 74, from which claims 82-84 ultimately depend, is similar to independent
claim 28. As set forth above, the Appellants have not convinced us of reversible
error in the rejection of claim 28 over JP ‘093 in view of Du Pree or JP ‘432,
further in view of Collette or the Appellants’ admitted prior art.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013