Appeal No. 1999-0498
Application 08/532,225
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 1-10, 12, 13 and 29-36. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appellants have nominally indicated that for purposes
of this appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the
following two groups: Group I has claims 1-10, 12 and 13, and
Group II has claims 29-36 [brief, pages 5-6]. Consistent with
this indication appellants have made no separate arguments
with respect to any of the claims within each group.
Accordingly, all the claims within each group 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 claims 1 and 29 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,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007