Appeal No. 2004-0499
Application No. 09/251,789
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that Appellants’ specification in this application does not
describe the claimed invention in a manner which complies with
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view
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
1-29. Accordingly, we affirm.
At the outset, we note that although Appellants nominally
indicate a suggested grouping (Brief, page 6) for the appealed
claims, Appellants’ arguments for each of the Examiner’s
rejections are directed solely to independent claim 1, the
claimed features of which are also present in independent claims
9, 14, and 22, the other independent claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for all the claims on appeal, and claims
2-29 will stand or fall with claim 1. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007