Appeal No. 96-0750
Application 07/944,561
dence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the 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 rebut-
tal set forth in the examiner's answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the 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, 2, 20 and 21. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal claims 1, 2, 20 and 21 will stand or fall together as a
single group. Consistent with this indication appellants have
made no separate arguments with respect to any of these 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007