Appeal No. 1997-3969 Application No. 08/175,052 arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer. It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1-7 and 18-25. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 8-17 and 26-29. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part. Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal the claims will all stand or fall together in groups as rejected by the examiner [brief, page 5]. Consistent with this indication appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to different claims within each rejection of the examiner. Therefore, appellants’ grouping will be accepted as a representation that all the claims within each rejection will stand or fall together. 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). Accordingly, we will only consider the rejections against a single claim 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007