Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
perpendicular to the direction of movement between the retention structure and the
mating retention structure, is reversed for reasons given in the discussion of
claim 10.
The rejection of claims 39 and 41, which depend on independent claims 20
and 29, respectively, and specify that the retention structures “comprise angled
retention structures,” is affirmed. This limitation is satisfied by Ohgami for the
reasons given in the discussion of claim 7.
Inasmuch as Appellant does not separately argue the merits of the remaining
dependent claims (namely, claims 3, 5, 6, 21, 29-35, 38, and 42), we are also
affirming the § 103(a) rejection with respect to those claims. Young, 927 F.2d at
590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Summarizing, the § 103(a) rejection is affirmed with respect to claims 1-3,
5, 6, 12, 13, 18-21, 28-35, 38, 39, 41, and 42 and reversed with respect to claim 4.
DECISION
The § 102(b) rejection is affirmed with respect to claims 7-9, 11, 14-17, 22-
27, 36, 37, and 40 and reversed with respect to claim 10.
The § 103(a) rejection is affirmed with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 12, 13,
18-21, 28-35, 38, 39, 41, and 42 and reversed with respect to claim 4.
19
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013