Appeal No. 2002-0587 Page 4
Application No. 08/922,300
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection 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 invention as set forth in claims 1-11. Accordingly,
we affirm.
Appellant asserts (brief and reply brief, page 5) that
"[c]laim 1 stands or falls alone, and claims 2-11 stand or fall
with claim 1," and (reply brief, page 6) that "[s]ince the
patentability of all the claims depend upon the patentability of
claim 1, then only the limitations of claim 1 need be addressed."
Accordingly, we consider claim 1 to be representative of the
group.
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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007