Appeal No. 96-3374 Application No. 08/115,974 hindsight. However, it is our opinion as set forth above that the applied prior art does provide the suggestion or motivation to make the selection made by the appellants. The extent to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or may be fairly inferred from, the references, is decided on the facts of each case, in light of the prior art and its relationship to the appellants' claimed invention. It is our determination that Hiraoka and Rao suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of modifying Oda to make the claimed combination. Claims 2, 3 and 5 through 12 As set forth previously, the appellants have grouped claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 12 as standing or falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 through 12 fall with independent claim 1. Thus, it follows that the examiner's rejections of claim 2, 3 and 5 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also sustained. Claim 13 14Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007