Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
Claim 59 as a representative claim of Group I;
Claim 61 as a representative claim of Group II;
Claim 62 as a representative claim of Group III;
Claim 67 as a representative claim of Group IV;
Claim 69 as a representative claim of Group V;
Claim 70 as a representative claim of Group VI;
Claim 74 as a representative claim of Group VII; and
Claim 77 as a representative claim of Group VIII.
If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free
to select a single claim from each group and to decide the appeal
of that rejection based solely on the selected representative
claim. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465
(Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 59, 60, 66, and 68 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 not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 59, 60, 66, and
68. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007