Ex parte MUIRHEAD - Page 4

          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                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007