Ex Parte LEWIS et al - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2002-1326                                                        
          Application 09/152,759                                                      

          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 not have suggested to one of ordinary skill            
          in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in                 
          claims 1-18.  Accordingly, we reverse.                                      
          Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this                         
          appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single               
          group [brief, page 4].  Consistent with this indication                     
          appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any of           
          the claims on appeal.  Accordingly, all the claims before us will           
          stand or fall together.  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).  Therefore, we will consider           
          the rejection against independent claim 1 as representative of              
          all the claims on appeal.                                                   
          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,           
          17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one               
                                         -4-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007