Appeal No. 1997-1885
Application No. 08/296,671
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims
1, 4-9 and 11. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect
to claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 23 and 24. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims do
not stand or fall together, but they have not specifically
argued the limitations of each of the claims. To the extent
that appellants have properly argued the reasons for
independent patentability of specific claims, we will consider
such claims individually for patentability. To the extent that
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to
some of the claims, such claims will stand or fall with the
claims from which they depend. 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).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007