Appeal No. 2002-1620 Page 9
Application No. 09/504,416
claim 1. Features not claimed cannot be relied on to establish patentability. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. As set forth above, the appellants have grouped
claims 1 to 5, 8 to 13 and 16 to 19 as standing or falling together. Thereby, in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2 to 5, 8 to 13 and 16 to 19 fall with claim
1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 to 5, 8 to 13 and
16 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007