Appeal No. 2001-1209
Application No. 09/106,281
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs 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 have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 2-4
and 6-9. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of the appealed claims are organized
according to a suggested grouping of claims indicated at page 4
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007