Appeal 2007-1463 Page 24
Application 10/083,492
Claims 4 and 10
Because Appellants argue claims 4 and 10 as a group, pursuant to the rules,
the Board selects representative claim 4 to decide the appeal with respect to this
rejection, and claim 10 will stand or fall with claim 4. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006). Claim 4 reads as follows:
Claim 4. A retaining assembly according to claim 3, wherein the plate has a
generally square shape, and wherein the cavity has a generally parallelepipedic
shape.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
holding that the combination of Keller and Vitali would have rendered the subject
matter of claim 4 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. We incorporate herein the facts under the Findings of Fact section for the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16-18, 24, 25, 29, 30, 35-38, 40, and 41
above and add the following facts.
2. Appellants argue in its entirety:
e. Generally Square Plate within Generally Parallelepipedic Cavity
Claim 4, which depends serially from claims 1 and 3; claim 10, which
depends serially from claims 7 and 9; and claim 18, which depends serially
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013