Appeal No. 1999-2845 Page 10
Application No. 08/495,471
Claims 17, 18, 24 to 33, 37 to 44, 47, 48 and 50 to 60
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 17, 18, 24
to 33, 37 to 44, 47, 48 and 50 to 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is also affirmed since the appellant has not argued separately
the patentability of any particular claim apart from the
others, thus allowing claims 17, 18, 24 to 33, 37 to 44, 47, 48
and 50 to 60 to fall with claim 49 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood,
582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); and 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) and (8)(iv)).
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 19 to 23, 34
to 36, 45, 46 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d at 591, 18 USPQ2d
at 1091 and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007