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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007