Appeal No. 97-2472 Page 4
Application No. 08/223,770
we reverse. Our opinion discusses the grouping and
nonobviousness of the claims seriatim.
Grouping
The appellants state that the claims should be considered
as a single group for the appeal. (Appeal Br. at 7.)
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. See 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); 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7);
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1206.
Nonobviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the patent
examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. A prima facie case of obviousness
is established when the teachings from the prior art itself
would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. If the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007