Appeal No. 1999-0081
Application No. 08/506,645
Here, the appellant asserts, "[c]laims 1 to 5 ... stand
or fall together ...." (Appeal Br. at 7.) Concomitantly, he
fails to allege that, let alone explain why, claims 2-4 are
separately patentable from claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-4
stand or fall together, with claim 1 representing the group.
With this representation in mind, I address the obviousness of
the claims.
II. Obviousness of the Claims
I begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007