Appeal No. 94-4400
Application 07/771,063
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 10-20. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
three groups: Group I has claims 10-12, Group II has claims 13-
16, and Group III has claims 17-20. 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). Accordingly, we will only consider the rejection
against claims 10, 13 and 17 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
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007