Appeal No. 96-1467
Application No. 08/247,452
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 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 22-32. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together except for
claim 30 which is separately grouped [brief, page 6].
Consistent with this indication appellants have made separate
arguments only with respect to claim 30 on appeal.
Accordingly, all the other 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). Therefore, we will consider the
rejection against independent claims 22 and 30 as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
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,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007