Appeal No. 1997-1413
Application 07/765,757
set forth in
claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 17, 40 and 41. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to the rejections based on Sakurada
and Hattori. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant has nominally indicated that the claims do
not stand or fall together [brief, pages 4-5], but he has not
specifically argued the limitations of each of the claims. To
the extent that appellant has properly argued the reasons for
independent patentability of specific claims, we will consider
such claims individually for patentability. To the extent
that appellant has made no separate arguments with respect to
some of the claims, such claims will stand or fall with the
claims from which they depend. 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).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007