Appeal 2007-0561
Application 10/689,465
1 regarded as entering the trough through a side wall rather than a top plate, there
2 would be no other identified difference between the claimed invention of claims 9
3 and 18 and the disclosed grounding clamp of Mooney. One with ordinary skill in
4 the art would have possessed sufficient skill to use in Mooney’s grounding clamp
5 the trough and set screw orientation as disclosed in Meinhardt and expect success.
6 The trough and set screw orientation disclosed by Meinhardt would have been
7 available for use and selection by one with ordinary skill in the art, as would be
8 those disclosed by Reichman and Churla.
9 The applicants have not argued the merits of any dependent claim separate
10 from that of the independent claim on which it depends. Accordingly, all of the
11 claims stand or fall together.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the applicants have not met their burden of proof
13 in demonstrating error in any rejection on appeal.
14 CONCLUSION
15 The rejection of claims 9, 11-13, 17, 18-22, 24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
16 § 103 as unpatentable over Mooney, Reichman, Churla, and Meinhardt is
17 affirmed.
18 The rejection of claims 14 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
19 over Mooney, Reichman, Meinhardt, Churla, and Bondeson is affirmed.
20 The rejection of claims 16 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
21 over Mooney, Reichman, Meinhardt, Churla, and Semtov is affirmed.
22 The rejection of claims 15 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
23 over Mooney, Reichman, Meinhardt, Churla, and Perera is affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013