Appeal No. 1999-0313 Page 6
Application No. 08/918,089
Claims 54-61 stand or fall together. Claim 62 stands
alone.
In addition, on pages 5 to 9 of the brief, the appellants have
provided separate arguments as to the patentability of claims
29, 44, 49, 54 and 62. In accordance with the appellants
grouping of claims and arguments provided, we need to review
only the rejections of claims 29, 44, 49, 54 and 62 to decide
the appeal on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth
above.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the relevant teachings of the references
to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 29
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007