Appeal 2007-1182
Application 10/020,136
Appellants submit at page 4 of the Brief that "[n]one of the claims
stand or fall together." However, Appellants do not set forth different
substantive arguments for the various claims on appeal, including the claims
separately rejected by the Examiner over the additional disclosures of Ross
and Humason. Pages 16-24 of Appellants' Brief are devoted to recitations in
different claims on appeal, but no separate substantive arguments are
presented for any of these claims. Rather, Appellants repeat that the
"rejection of this claim is improper for the reasons set forth above with
respect to claim 21," and with the conclusory remark that the combination of
references fails to show each and every limitation of the particular claim.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 21.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as the
cogent disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly, we
will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Micchia, like Appellants, discloses a method
of reducing reflective light glare into a human's eyes from the human's
cheeks by covering a location at which incident direct or indirect light is
likely to be reflected in the human's eyes with a non-toxic material having a
non-reflective colored exterior surface. As appreciated by the Examiner, the
light absorbing patch of Micchia does not have a shape within its exterior
surface having a color which contrasts with the non-reflective color.
However, we fully concur with the Examiner that Essig evidences the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013