Appeal No. 95-0057
Application 07/775,114
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. 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 rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
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 have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1, 4, 6-12 and 14. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claim 5. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part.
Appellants have nominally indicated in section VI. of the
brief that the claims within each of the three rejections stand
together. Nevertheless, the arguments section of the brief
proceeds to provide arguments in support of the separate
patentability of some of the claims. This procedure is
inconsistent with 37 CFR § 1.192 and would be grounds to treat
all the claims within each rejection as standing or falling
together. However, since the examiner in the answer has
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007