Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief 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
1-11 and 17. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
claims 12-16. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s arguments in response to the Examiner’s
rejection of the appealed claims are organized according to a
suggested grouping of claims indicated at page 5 of the Brief.
We will consider the appealed claims separately only to the
extent separate arguments for patentability are presented. Any
dependent claim not separately argued will stand or fall with its
base claim. 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).
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden to make out
a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden is met, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007