Appeal No. 1999-1661
Application No. 08/801,862
consideration, in reaching our decision, 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 have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 1, 5, and 6. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants have indicated (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that,
for the purposes of this appeal, independent claim 1 stands or
falls separately from claims 5 and 6 which are grouped
together. We will consider the claims separately only to the
extent that separate arguments are of record in this appeal.
Dependent claim 6 has not been argued separately in the Brief
and, accordingly, will stand or fall with its base claim 5.
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).
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007