Appeal No. 96-0587
Application 07/927,543
that the rejected claims stand or fall together unless a
statement is included that the rejected claims do not stand or
fall together, and in the appropriate part or parts of the
argument under subparagraph (c)(6) appellant presents reasons as
to why appellant considers the rejected claims to be separately
patentable" (emphasis added)).
We address only the limitations argued in appellants' brief.
Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391,
21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of
this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior
art."); In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661
(CCPA 1979) (arguments must first be presented to the Board
before they can be argued on appeal).
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue that Sriram does not disclose the step of
"choosing a satisficing solution to satisfy all of said
constraints" as recited in claim 1 or "selecting a satisficing
solution to satisfy all said constraints" as recited in claim 27.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007