Ex parte JORDAN - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1997-2700                                                        
          Application 08/307,249                                                      


          skill in the art the obviousness of the invention set forth in              
          claims 4-7, 14-17, and 21-23.  Accordingly, we affirm.                      
               Appellant has nominally indicated (Brief, page 8) that,                
          for purposes of this appeal, the claims do not stand or fall                
          together.  It is apparent, however, that Appellant has                      
          organized his arguments by grouping the claims subject to each              
          rejection as a single group.  We will consider the claims                   
          separately only to the extent that separate arguments are of                
          record in this appeal.  Any claim not specifically argued will              
          stand or fall with its                                                      




          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).                                             
               We will consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 8-13,              
          18-20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.  102(e) as being anticipated by              
          Hunt.  We note that this rejected group of claims includes all              
          of the independent claims (i.e. claims 1, 11, and 19) on                    
          appeal.   Anticipation is established only when a single prior              


                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007