Appeal No. 95-0884
Application 07/805,098
Appellant has nominally indicated that for purposes of
this appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a
single group [brief, page 3]. 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). Accordingly, we will only
consider the rejection against claim 1 as representative of all
the claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Torii and
Camras. 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
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007