Appeal No. 1997-1378
Application No. 08/065,328
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 1-3, 6,
7, 9-13, 16, 17, and 19. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 18. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
Appellants have indicated (Brief, page 7) that, for the
purposes of this appeal, the claims will stand or fall
together in the following groups: Group I (claims 1-3, 9-13,
and 19), Group II (claims 4, 5, 14, and 15), Group III (claims
6 and 16), Group IV (claims 7 and 17), and Group V (claims 8
and 18). Consistent with this indication, Appellants have
made no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims
within each group. Accordingly, we will consider the claims
separately only to the extent that separate arguments are of
record in this appeal. Any dependent claim not argued
separately will stand or fall with its base claim.
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden
to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden
is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to Appellants
to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007