Appeal No. 2000-0454
Application 08/377,027
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 not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the
claims on appeal. 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). Since appellant and the examiner have
argued the limitations which appear in claim 1, 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
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007