Appeal No. 2002-1876
Application 09/358,158
referred to as "Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 16) (pages
referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br3).
Factual findings
The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the
references. See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210,
214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO usually must evaluate both the scope
and content of the prior art and the level of ordinary skill
solely on the cold words of the literature"); In re GPAC Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the
Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of
skill in the art was best determined by the references of
record); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355,
59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[T]he absence of specific
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
reversible error 'where the prior art itself reflects an
appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.'").
Atsumi '565, Figs. 1-3, discloses the connector of claim 1
except for the limitation, "wherein at least one of the width and
thickness of the partial locking arms is set smaller than that of
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007