Appeal No. 2004-2099
Application No. 09/487,191
We will, thereby, consider Appellants' claims as standing or
falling together in the two groups noted above, and we will
treat:
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I; and
Claim 7 as a representative claim of Group II.
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 1-6 and 20-22 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 1-6 and 20-22.
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
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007