Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 5
Application No. 08/366,988
of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is]
disclosed ....’”
In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977)
(quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424
(CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know
something” about the art “apart from what the references
disclose.”
In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA
1962). With these principles in mind, we consider the
obviousness of the following logical groups of claims:
• claims 1, 3, 5, 12-17, 23, and 25
• claims 6, 18-20, 22, 24, and 26
• claims 10 and 21.
We begin with claims 1, 3, 5, 12-17, 23, and 25.
I. Claims 1, 3, 5, 12-17, 23, and 25
Claims that are not argued separately stand or fall
together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201
USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). When the patentability of dependent
claims is not argued separately, moreover, the claims stand or
fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007