Appeal No. 1999-0843
Application No. 08/666,970
are also of the view that the disclosure of Kaneko fully meets
the invention as set forth in claims 1-4 and 6-8. In
addition, we are of the opinion 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 set forth in claims 5, 9, and 12-16.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Although Appellant has nominally asserted (Brief, page
10) the separate patentability of each of the claims on
appeal, separate arguments for patentability have been
provided only for independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-9
and 12-16 have not been argued separately in the Briefs and,
accordingly, will stand or fall with their base claim 1. We
will select independent claim 1 as the representative claim
for all of the rejections before us on appeal. 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).
We first consider the Examiner’s anticipatory rejection
of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 12-16 based on the disclosure of the
admitted prior art in Appellant’s specification. Anticipation
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007