Appeal No. 96-2994
Application 08/282,413
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs 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 1-26. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims do
not stand or fall together [brief, page 3], but they have not
specifically argued the limitations of each of the claims for
nonobviousness. Simply pointing out what a claim requires
with no attempt to point out how the claims patentably
distinguish over the prior art does not amount to a separate
argument for patentability. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 2
USPQ2d 1525
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007