Appeal No. 1997-2474 Page 6
Application No. 08/125,590
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Here, the appellants assert that claims 1-13, 24, 25, 28
and 31 should stand or fall together. They also assert that
claims 14-23 and 26 should stand or fall together. The
appellants, moreover, fail to explain whether claims 1-8, 24,
25, 28, 29, and 31 are believed to be separately patentable.
They also fail to explain whether claims 14-23 and 26 are
believed to be separately patentable. Therefore, the claims
stand or fall together in the following groups:
• claims 1-8, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 31
• claims 9-12
• claim 13
• claims 14-23 and 26.
We select claims 24, 9, 13, and 26 to represent the respective
groups. Next, we address the obviousness of the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
We begin by finding that the references represent the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007