Appeal No. 96-1465
Application No. 08/115,299
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1-5 and 19-21. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 3]. Consistent with this indication
appellant has made no separate arguments with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before
us will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, we will only consider the rejection against
independent claim 1 as representative of all the claims on
appeal.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007