Appeal 2007-1204
Application 10/370,869
(X0, Y0, Zc) by the clamped insert 16.
Appellants did not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of dependent claims 2-23, 45, 48-50, 52, 53, 55, and 57. Therefore,
these claims fall with claims 1, 24, 47, 51 and 56. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
Appellants attempt to separately argue additional claim elements particular
to claims 24 and 51, but in so doing, merely point out what these claims recite. A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006). Additionally, Appellants further do not provide a substantive argument as
to the separate patentability of dependent claims 25-32, 46, 52, and 55. Therefore,
claims 25-32 and 46; and 52 and 55 fall with claims 24 and 51, respectively. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-32
and 45-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Engibarov in view of
Wharton.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013