Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
Dependent claims 13, 38, and 39
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 38, and 39 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Veliadis in view of Hoyt, and
further in view of Naarmann.
Appellants argue that Naarmann does not remedy the deficiencies of
Veliadis because Naarmann does not teach a vehicle (Br. 16).
We note that the Examiner relies upon Hoyt as teaching a vehicle
carrying an electrical load (See Answer 5). The Examiner’s rejection is
based upon the combination of Veliadis, Hoyt, and Naarmann. Thus,
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed to the
separate patentability of dependent claims 13, 38, and 39. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over
Veliadis in view of Hoyt and Naarmann for the same reasons set forth above
regarding independent claims 1 and 34 respectively.
Claims 3, 8, 22, 36, 43, and 52-56
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 8, 22, 36, 43,
and 52-56 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Veliadis in view of
Hoyt, and further in view of McLuckey. Since Appellants’ arguments have
treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will
select independent claim 52 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Appellants argue that McLuckey does not remedy the deficiencies of
Veliadis because McLuckey does not teach a vehicle (Br. 16). Appellants
further argue that McLuckey is not properly combinable with Veliadis
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013