Appeal No. 1999-0427
Application 08/782,272
before us, that the specification of this application
adequately supports the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §
112. We are also of the view that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness
of the invention as set forth in claims 1-9, 14-18, 20-24, 26,
27 and 32-37. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 2]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before
us 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 rejections against independent
claim 1 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-37 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection states:
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, as containing subject matter
which was not described in the specification in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007