Ex parte MAHALEK et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1999-1661                                                        
          Application No. 08/801,862                                                  

          consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments              
          set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in              
          support of the rejection 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, 5, and 6.  Accordingly, we affirm.                             
               Appellants have indicated (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that,                 
          for the purposes of this appeal, independent claim 1 stands or              
          falls separately from claims 5 and 6 which are grouped                      
          together.  We will consider the claims separately only to the               
          extent that separate arguments are of record in this appeal.                
          Dependent claim 6 has not been argued separately in the Brief               
          and, accordingly, will stand or fall with its base claim 5.                 
          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).                                                           
               As a general proposition in an appeal involving a                                                                     
          rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103, an Examiner is under a burden              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007