Appeal No. 96-0069
Application 08/110,493
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 not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 13-21. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims on
appeal do not stand or fall together [brief, pages 5-6].
However, appellants have made no separate arguments with respect
to any of the claims within each rejection. Since appellants
have failed to appropriately argue the separate patentability of
the claims, all contested claims stand or fall together. 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). Accordingly, we will only consider the rejections against
claim 13 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koechner. In rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007