Appeal No. 2004-1959
Application No. 09/465,465
support for the rejections. We have, 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 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 disclosure of Gerace fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15-17. In addition, we are of
the opinion 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 5, 6, and 14. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
rejections of the appealed claims are organized according to a
suggested grouping of claims indicated at pages 5 and 6 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007