Appeal No. 2000-0634
Application No. 08/274,942
Claims 1 to 4, 8 to 40, 42 to 61 and 63 to 81 are rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Clark. Claim 5 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Clark and Fogarty.2 (Answer, pp. 3 and 5).
Appellants have indicated (Brief, page 3) that, for the purposes of this appeal, the
claims will stand or fall together. Consistent with this indication, Appellants have made no
separate arguments with respect to the remaining claims. Accordingly, all the claims will
stand or fall together for each ground of rejection, and we select claims 1 and 5 as
representative of all of the rejected claims on appeal for each ground of rejection. Note In
re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejections
are well founded. Our reasons for this determination follow.
2 Appellants, in the Brief, indicated that the claims 1 to 5, 8 to 40, 42 to 61 and 63 to 81
have been rejected over the combination of Clark and Fogarty. (Brief, pp. 3 and 8). However, the
Examiner has not presented this rejection in either the Final rejection or Answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007