Appeal No. 96-2161
Application 08/227,024
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make reference to
the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
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 1-8. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal the claims will all stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 11]. Since there are several different rejections
before us, appellant’s grouping will be accepted as a representation that all the claims
within each rejection 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007