Appeal No. 2005-0429 Page 4
Application No. 09/872,209
(July 1, 2002) as amended at 62 Fed. Reg. 53169 (October 10, 1997), which was
controlling at the time of Appellants’ filing of the brief. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)
states:
Grouping of claims. For each ground of rejection
which appellant contests and which applies to a group
of two or more claims, the Board shall select a single
claim from the group and shall decide the appeal as
to the ground of rejection on the basis of that claim
alone unless a statement is included that the claims of
the group do not stand or fall together and, in the
argument under paragraph (c)(8) of this section,
appellant explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable. Merely pointing
out differences in what the claims cover is not an
argument as to why the claims are separately
patentable.
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.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-6 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 have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 1-6. Accordingly, we
affirm.
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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007