Appeal No. 1998-0701
Application 08/263,744
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness
of the invention as set forth in claims 1-13. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims within each rejection will stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 5]. Consistent with
this indication appellant has made no separate arguments with
respect to any of the claims subject to the same rejection.
Accordingly, 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).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter
which was not described in the originally filed specification.
The rejection results from a finding by the examiner that an
amendment to independent claims 1 and 10 was new matter which
was unsupported by the original disclosure. The amendment in
question amended the phrase “records an audio and video
signal” in claims 1 and 10 to “records an analog audio and
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007