Appeal No. 1999-0497
Application 08/760,922
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-8,
12, 14 and 17 based on the teachings of Sanders and Lutz and
either Sues or De Vaulx. These claims stand or fall together
as a single group [brief, page 3]. Therefore, we will
consider the examiner’s rejection with respect to claim 1 as
representative of all the claims subject to this rejection.
With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner finds that Sanders teaches all the features of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007