Appeal No. 2004-1903
Application No. 09/973,741
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of the
rejection, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed
and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer. 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 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 21-23.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellant’s arguments in response to the Examiner’s rejection
of the appealed claims are organized according to a suggested
grouping of claims indicated at page 4 of the Brief. We will
consider the appealed claims separately only to the extent separate
arguments for patentability are presented. Any dependent claim not
separately argued will stand or fall with its base claim. Note In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007