Appeal No. 1996-1431
Application 08/087,140
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the analysis provided by
the examiner would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
76-94. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
two groups: Group I has claims 76-84, and Group II has claims 85-
94 [brief, page 8]. Consistent with this indication appellants
have made no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims
within each group. Accordingly, all the claims within each group
will stand or fall together. Note 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). Therefore, we
will only consider the rejection against claims 76 and 85 as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007