Appeal No. 2001-1795
Application 08/825,196
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
10-14. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims
1-9 and 15-19. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Even though the examiner has applied seven different
groupings of references to reject all the claims on appeal,
appellant has, nevertheless, indicated that the claims should
stand or fall together in only three groups. Specifically,
appellant has indicated that claims 1-9 stand or fall together as
a first group, claims 10-14 stand or fall together as a second
group, and claims 15-19 stand or fall together as a third group
[brief, page 4]. Since appellant has not argued each of the
rejections independently, we will consider the rejections against
claims 1, 10 and 15 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).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007