Appeal No. 96-2994
Application 08/282,413
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Since the dependent claims have not been
properly argued for separate patentability, such claims will
stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. Note
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, we will consider the rejection against
independent claims 1 and 14 as representative of all the
claims on appeal before us.
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
from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007