Appeal No. 1998-0252
Application No. 08/555,795
patentable weight to the indicia is established in the claim,
but the elongated sheet disclosed by
Colavito clearly meets this limitation, in that it is capable
of receiving the indicia in the manner and in the order set
forth in the “wherein” statement of claim 1.
It therefore is our view that the applied prior art
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter recited in independent claim 1. In view of
the fact that the appellant has chosen not to challenge with
any reasonable specificity before this Board the rejection of
any of the claims depending from claim 1, they are grouped
with claim 1, and fall therewith. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In reaching this conclusion, we have carefully considered
all of the arguments presented by the appellant. However,
they have not convinced us that these rejections were in
error. Our position with respect to these arguments should be
apparent from the foregoing explanation. In essence, we
regard the appellant’s interpretation of “functional
relationship” not to fall within the definition of that phrase
as established by the court in Miller and Gulack.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007