Appeal No. 1997-1379
Application 08/194,748
Grouping of claims
The Examiner errs in finding (EA2) that the separate
patentability of claims 20-22 has not been argued and,
therefore, that these claims stand or fall together with
claim 19. Appellants correctly note (RBr1) that the features
of claims 20-22 are addressed at pages 14-15 of the Brief.
Accordingly, the patentability of claims 20-22 must be
addressed individually. Since the statement of the rejection
in the Examiner's Answer is taken verbatim from the Final
Rejection, which should have addressed all of the claims, we
will not remand the case to the Examiner.
Obviousness
The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A prima facie case of obviousness is made by presenting
evidence that the "reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
having the references before him to make the proposed
substitution, combination or other modification." In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972);
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007