Appeal 2007-1463 Page 25
Application 10/083,492
from claims 13 and 17, specify that the plate of the retaining assembly of the
invention has a generally square shape and that the cavity of the disk in
which the plate is housed has a generally parallelepipedic shape.
This combination is not taught or suggested by the combination of
KELLER and VITALI and, accordingly, the rejection of claims 4 and 10
should be reversed.
Br. 23.
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the principles of law under the Principles of Law
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.
D. Analysis
Appellants’ argument (FF 2) is no more than a general allegation that the art
does not teach a claim limitation. This sort of argument does no more than merely
point out the recitation of a claim limitation. In that regard, a statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013