Appeal 2007-0470
Application 09/976,997
Enlarged Detail of Fig. 1 of Radloff Showing Curved Portion of Filler Panel
Engaging Chassis
In our view, this curved portion reasonably corresponds to a “locating
element” coupled to the filler panel body as claimed. Moreover, the curved
portion’s engagement with the chassis would, at least in part, orient the filler
panel body with respect to the chassis and reduce interference generating
movement as claimed.
For at least these reasons, Radloff anticipates independent claim 1.
Since Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of dependent
claims 2 and 3, these claims fall with independent claim 1. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 6-8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Radloff (claim 4) and Radloff and Jones (claims 6-8). We find that (1) the
Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for these
claims on Pages 4 and 5 of the Answer, and (2) Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case. Although Appellants
grouped claims 4 and 6-8 as separately patentable (Br. 4-5), Appellants
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013