Appeal No. 2000-1569 Application 08/964,686 rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer. It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the specification does not provide enablement of the claimed invention as required by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the appealed claims comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Finally, we are 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, 25, 26, 30 and 31. Accordingly, we affirm based on the rejection for lack of enablement. Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 4]. 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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007