Appeal No. 1996-0605
Application 07/989,593
appellant’s Brief (Paper No. 20, filed April 6, 1995), Corrections to Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 21, received April 18, 1995) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 23, received
August 23, 1995) for the appellant’s arguments in favor of patentability.
CLAIM GROUPING:
At page 4 of the Brief, appellant states that claims 8 and 23-27 stand or
fall together, and claims 11, 14 and 28-32 stand or fall together. However, we
find no separate arguments as to the claims or designated groups as required by
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) (1994) (Claims stand or fall together “unless a statement is
included that the rejected claims do not stand or fall together and, in the
appropriate part or parts of the argument under paragraph (c)(6) of this section,
appellant presents reasons as to why appellant considers the rejected claims to
be separately patentable.” (Emphasis added.)). Therefore, the claims on appeal
are considered to stand or fall together with regard to each ground of rejection.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on the underlying facts. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); Continental
Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1270, 20
USPQ2d 1746, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
810 F.2d 1561, 1566-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-97 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007