Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
Although Appellants have provided a statement that the
claims do not stand or fall together, Appellants have not in
the arguments section of the brief explained why the claims
are believed to be separately patentable. Specifically the
Appellants have not shown why claim 4 is separately patentable
over claim 1 or why claim 84 is separately patentable over
claim 83. Accordingly, for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based upon Lee, we will group claims 1, 4 and 5 and we
will treat claim 1 as representative of that group. For the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Lee and Lavagetto,
we will group claims 83 and 84 with claim 83 as a
representative claim of the group.
We first consider the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art or by the implications contained in
such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007