Appeal No. 1999-1803
Application No. 08/968,845
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference
to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, 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 1-18. 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 3]. 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 rejection against
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007