Appeal No. 2003-1581
Application 09/425,748
of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
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 disclosure of Shtivelman does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1-20. 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 6]. Consistent with this indication appellant
has 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.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007