Appeal No. 97-1657 Page 5
Application No. 08/216,735
examiner to support the rejection. We have also considered
the appellants’ arguments contained in the brief along with
the examiner’s arguments in rebuttal contained in the 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 in claims 1-20. Accordingly,
we reverse.
Grouping of the claims
The appellants state that for the appeal the claims
should be considered as a single group. (Appeal Br. at 4.)
Consistent with this statement, the appellants do not argue
separately
the patentability of the claims within the rejection.
Accordingly, all claims within the rejection stand or fall
together. We will, therefore, consider the rejection of claim
1 as representative of all the claims on appeal. See 37
C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 1206; In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007