Appeal No. 1998-3365
Application No. 08/673,214
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, 3 and 4. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group
[brief, page 5]. Consistent with this indication appellant
has made no separate arguments with respect to any of the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before us 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). Therefore, we will
consider the rejection against independent claim 1 as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
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
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007