Appeal 2007-1666
Application 10/132,904
finding, which …[otherwise] …must be shown to be clearly erroneous…” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1479, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yin. Because the Appellant’s arguments as to independent claim 19
are limited to the same arguments presented for claim 1, we affirm the rejection of
claim 19 for the same reasons set forth infra with respect to claim 1.
The Appellant does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of claims 2-18 that depend from claim 1, which is the sole
independent claim among those claims. Therefore, claims 2-18 fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006). Likewise, the Appellant does not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 20-35 that depend
from claim 19, which is the sole independent claim among those claims.
Therefore, claims 20-35 fall with claim 19.
Appellant argues two points in its Briefs.
First, the Appellant argues that:
Yin fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a razor cartridge
having a guard attached to a frame forward of one or
more razor blades, the guard comprising a water-
insoluble compliant component and a water-soluble
lubricious component integrally formed therewith and
substantially uniformly mixed therewith, as recited in
claim 1.
(Appeal Br. 5, emphasis in original)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013