Appeal No. 97-1246 Page 6
Application No. 08/196,731
advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness
relied on by the examiner for the rejection. We also have
considered the appellants’ arguments contained in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejection and arguments in rebuttal contained in the
examiner’s answer. After considering the record before us, it
is our view that the collective evidence replied on and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention set forth in
claims 1-7 and 10. Accordingly, we reverse.
Grouping of the claims
The appellants contend that for the appeal the claims
should be considered as four separate groups. (Brief, p. 4)
The appellants fail to present arguments, however, why
dependent claim 3, which is subject to the same rejection as
the independent claim 1, is separately patentable. In the
argument section of the appeal brief the appellants make no
comment on the dependent claims but argue only the merits of
the independent claims. As such, the claims are properly
characterized in three groups. The first group comprises
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007