Appeal No. 1997-1644 Page 6
Application No. 08/367,681
The appellant states that the claims should be considered
in the following groups for the appeal:
• claims 1-10 and 12-22
• claim 11.
(Appeal Br. at 5.) Conversely, he omits a statement that
claims 1-10 and 12-22 do not stand or fall together and
reasons why claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 are separately
patentable. Therefore, we consider the claims to stand or
fall together in these groups, with claims 9 and 11 as the
respective representative claims of the two groups. Next, we
address the obviousness of the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
We begin by finding that the references represent the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did
not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the
art was best determined by the references of record); In re
Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978)
("[T]he PTO usually must evaluate ... the level of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007