Appeal No. 1998-2515
Application 08/548,938
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
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 Oberg does not support the rejection of any of
claims 29-48. 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 3]. Consistent with this indication
appellant has made no separate arguments with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Since there are two different
rejections before us, appellant’s 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
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007