Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
Appellants’ 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 obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
2-7, 9-18, 22-24, and 26-32. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of the appealed claims are organized
according to a suggested grouping of claims indicated at pages 3
and 4 of the Brief. Consistent with this indication, Appellants
have presented arguments directed to independent claim 27, which
we will consider as the representative claim for all the claims
on appeal with the exception of separately argued claim 12 and
its dependent claims 13-15. Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9-11, 16-
18, 22-24, 26, and 28-32 will stand or fall with claim 27, and
claims 13-15 will stand or fall with claim 12. 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007