Appeal No. 96-2021
Application 08/004,016
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
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 29, 30, 34, 35, 39 and 40. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims will stand or fall together in the following two
groups: Group I has claims 29, 30, 34 and 35, and Group II has
claims 39 and 40 [brief, page 4]. Consistent with this
indication appellant has made no separate arguments with respect
to any of the claims within each group. Accordingly, all the
claims within each group 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 claims
29 and 39 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007