Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
claims 7-10 and 13-18; Group III has claims 29-34; and Group
IV has claims 10, 21 and 29 [brief, page 4]. Consistent with
this indication appellant has made no separate arguments with
respect to any of the claims within each group. 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). Therefore, we will only consider the
rejection against claims 1, 7 and 29 as representative of all
the claims on appeal (claim 29 is representative of both
Groups III and IV).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references
to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007