Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
24 as a representative claim of that group while claims 79
through 82 will be treated as a group and we will treat claim
79 as a representative claim of that group; claims 26 through
30 and 44 will be treated separately; claims 34 through 36 and
45 will be treated separately; for the rejection of claims 39,
40, 46 through 48, 54, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kunii
and Cohen, claims 39, 40, and 57 will be treated as a group and
we will treat claim 24 as a representative claim of that group
because Appellants only argue the limitations recited in claim
24 for these claims; claims 41 and 42 will be treated
separately. For the rejection under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, we will treat
claims 24 through 54, 56, 57, and 79 through 82 as a single
group and will treat claim 24 as a representative claim of that
group.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions found
in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally, when
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007