Appeal 2007-1804
Application 10/885,053
We AFFIRM.
Appellants invented a method for reducing vibration in a vacuum
cleaner (Specification 5). Representative claim 28 follows:
28. A method of reducing vibration in a vacuum cleaner including a
nozzle assembly and a canister assembly, comprising:
providing a biasing force between said nozzle assembly and said
canister assembly to dampen vibration.
The prior art set forth below is relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of anticipation and obviousness:
Stein US 5,819,370 Oct. 13, 1998
Claims 28 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Stein; and claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stein.
Appellants do not set forth separate substantive arguments against
claims 28 and 30-32.2 Appellants rely solely upon the asserted
2 In the statement of rejections to be reviewed, Appellants did not restate the
rejection of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the Stein reference.
Rather, Appellants asserted that the subject matter of claims 30 and 31 are
patentable for the reasons set forth regarding claim 28 (Br. 9). The
Examiner notified the Appellants, Answer page 2, of the omission from the
Brief. Appellants did not respond to the Examiner’s notification in a
responsive Brief. Therefore, we presume that Appellants intended for the
arguments presented regarding claim 28 to equally apply to the rejection of
claims 30 and 31.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013