Appeal No. 1998-0446
Application 08/572,195
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1 and 3-13. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal the
claims will all stand or fall together as a single group [brief,
page 4]. Consistent with this indication appellant has made no
separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, all the claims before us 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). Therefore, we will consider the rejection
against independent claim 1 as representative of all the claims
on appeal.
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 doing, the examiner
is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007