Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claim 14. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
claims 8-13. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims will stand or fall together in the following two
groups: Group I has claims 8-13, and Group II has claim 14.
Consistent with this indication appellant has made no separate
arguments with respect to any of the claims within each group.
Accordingly, all the claims within each group 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 claims 8 and 14 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007