Appeal No. 2003-0706
Application No. 09/356,241
OPINION
We have carefully 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, Appellants’ 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 14-16,
21, 22, and 24-26. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect
to claims 17-19, 27, 48, 50, 51, and 53-57. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
Appellants nominally indicate (Brief, page 6) that each of the
appealed claims 14-19, 21, 22, 24-27, 48, 50, 51, and 53-57 stands
or falls separately. 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007