Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
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 disclosure of Weiss does not fully meet
the invention as recited in claims 1-9. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 4]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the 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
claim 1, which is the broadest claim on appeal, as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007