Appeal No. 2002-2223
Application No. 09/475,891
Appellant has indicated (Brief, p. 3) that, for the purposes of this appeal, the
claims do not stand or fall together. We will consider the claims separately only to
the extent that separate arguments are of record in this appeal. Any claim not
specifically 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).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner
and the Appellant concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer and
the Brief. For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
In holding an invention obvious in view of a combination of references, there
must be some suggestion, motivation, or teaching in the prior art that would have
led a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the references and combine them in
the way that would produce the claimed invention. See, e.g., Heidelberger
Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Prods., Inc., 21 F.3d 1068, 1072,
30 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (When the patent invention is made by
combining known components to achieve a new system, the prior art must provide a
suggestion, or motivation to make such a combination.); Northern Telecom v.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007