Appeal No. 1997-2305
Application 08/451,459
1992). The examiner must explain why the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the desirability
of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d
at 1783-84. Because the examiner has not provided such an
explanation, the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the
apparatus recited in claim 17. Consequently, we reverse the
rejection of this claim and claims 18-20 which depend
therefrom.
Claims 21-27
Regarding claims 21-27, appellant presents separate
arguments as to only claims 21, 22 and 26-30 (brief, pages 7-
8). Claims 23-25, therefore, stand or fall with the claim
from which
they depend, i.e., claim 21. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565,
1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
Appellant argues that Eldridge’s apparatus does not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007