Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 7
Application No. 08/204,996
patentable. Therefore, we consider the claims to stand or
fall together in the following groups:
• claims 1-3, 5, and 8-10
• claim 4
• claims 6 and 7
• claims 11 and 12
• claim 13
• claim 14.
We also consider claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 13, and 14, as
representative of the respective groups. Next, we address the
obviousness of the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims by finding that the references represent the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in
concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was
best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich,
579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO
usually must evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely
on the cold words of the literature."). Of course, every
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007