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