Appeal No. 1997-2658
Application No. 08/478,974
with respect to claims 1 and 22-33. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
In the “Grouping of Claims” section of the Brief,
Appellants list each of the appealed independent claims 1, 2,
15, 16, 39, and 41. Consistent with this listing, Appellants
have separately argued the patentability of each of the
independent claims. We will consider the claims separately
only to the extent that separate arguments are of record in
this appeal. No separate arguments have been provided for any
of the dependent claims 3-14, 17-38, and 40 and, accordingly,
these claims will stand or fall with their base claim. 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). In addition, any arguments which Appellants could
have made but elected not to make in the Briefs have not been
considered in this decision (note 37 CFR § 1.192).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007