Appeal No. 2004-0468
Application 09/754,555
ground of rejection on the basis of that
claim alone unless a statement is included
that the claims of the group do not stand or
fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant
explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable. Merely
pointing out differences in what the claims
cover is not an argument as to why the claims
are separately patentable.
We will, thereby, consider Appellants’ claims as standing or
falling together in one group, and we will treat claim 1 as a
representative claim of the group.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-15
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
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
1-4, 6-10, and 12-15. Accordingly, we affirm.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007