Appeal No. 2000-1900
Application No. 08/669,937
Appellant’s arguments in response to the Examiner’s
rejection of the appealed claims are organized according to a
suggested grouping of claims indicated at page 5 of the Brief.
We will consider the appealed claims separately only to the
extent separate arguments for patentability are presented. Any
dependent claim not separately argued will stand or fall with its
base claim. 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 consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 as being unpatentable over Wei in
view of Saleh. After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis (Answer,
pages 3 and 4)1, it is our view that such analysis carefully
points out the teachings of the Wei and Saleh references,
reasonably indicates the perceived differences between this prior
art and the claimed invention, and provides reasons as to how and
why the prior art teachings would have been modified and/or
combined to arrive at the claimed invention. In our opinion, the
Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that
the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting a
1 The Answer makes reference to the statement of the rejection appearing
at pages 2 and 3 of the final Office action mailed March 29, 1999 (Paper No.
12).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007