Ex parte CAROL E. BASSETT - Page 4




          Appeal No. 95-4957                                                          
          Application 07/950,979                                                      


          rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                      
          consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'                    
          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 answers.                                        
          It is our view, after consideration of the record before                    
          us, that the collective 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 1-6, 8, 10-19, 22, 24, 27-29, 34 and 35.                    
          Accordingly, we reverse.                                                    
          In terms of the grouping of claims, appellants have only                    
          presented arguments with respect to the three independent claims            
          1, 13 and 34.  Therefore, we will consider each of the                      
          independent claims separately for patentability.  The dependent             
          claims will stand or fall with the independent claim from which             
          they respectively depend.  See 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).                                        
          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  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007