Appeal No. 95-4390
Application08/066,273
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the teachings of Obata and the level of skill
in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 7-11. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect
to claim 12. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
two groups: Group I has claims 7-11 and Group II has claim 12.
Consistent with this indication appellant has made no separate
arguments with respect to any of the other claims on appeal.
Accordingly, all the claims within each group 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 claims 7 and 12 as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner is under a burden
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007