Appeal No. 1997-3969
Application No. 08/175,052
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections 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 have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1-7 and 18-25. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claims 8-17 and 26-29.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together in groups as
rejected by the examiner [brief, page 5]. Consistent with
this indication appellants have made no separate arguments
with respect to different claims within each rejection of the
examiner. Therefore, appellants’ grouping will be accepted as
a representation that all the claims within each rejection
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 rejections against a single claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007