Appeal No. 1998-2709
Application No. 08/451,796
Although appellant nominally indicates that independent
claims 5 and 19 stand or fall separately from dependent claims
6-14 and 20-27 [brief, page 2], appellant has presented no
arguments in support of the separate patentability of the
dependent claims. Appellant simply asserts that the dependent
claims are patentable because they are similar to the allowed
claims. Such an assertion does not properly address the
rejection made by the examiner. Since the arguments section
of appellant’s brief only argues independent claims 5 and 19,
and since these two claims are argued together, all the claims
on appeal before us will stand or fall together as a single
group with claim 5 selected as the representative claim for
the entire group. 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).
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007