Appeal 2007-0788
Application 10/434,804 7
moved between the use position and the storage/servicing position as
required by claim 23 and dependent claims 24, and 25.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 because
the Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of this claim.
We will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining
claims because as we stated above, Esau does not disclose the subject matter
of these claims.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
hh
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013