Appeal No. 2001-0813 Page 3
Application No. 08/825,994
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s 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 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 1-20.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Even though the examiner has applied four different groupings of references to
reject all the claims on appeal, appellants have, nevertheless, indicated that the claims
should stand or fall together in only two groups. Specifically, appellants have indicated
that claims 1-18 stand or fall together as a first group, and claims 19 and 20 stand or
fall separately as a second group [brief, page 6]. Since appellants have not argued
each of the rejections independently, we will consider the rejections against claims 1
and 19 as representative of all the claims on appeal. 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007