Appeal No. 2004-1572
Application No. 09/370,104
Claims 1-8, 17-21, 29-33, 37-38, and 43-48, as Group I;
Claims 9-11, 34-36, and 49-51, as Group II; and
Claims 12-16, 22-28, 39-42, and 52-61, as Group III.
We will treat:
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I;
Claim 9 as a representative claim of Group II; and
Claim 12 as a representative claim of Group III.
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 1-8, 17-21, 29-33, 37-38 and 43-48 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 1-8, 17-21, 29-33, 37-38, and 43-48. 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,
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007