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