Ex Parte KIKINIS - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2005-0508                                                        
          Application No. 09/024,923                                                  

          the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the                
          claims on appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.                                  
          Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal                    
          the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group                
          (brief, page 9).  Consistent with this indication appellant has             
          made no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on             
          appeal.  Accordingly, all the claims before us will stand or fall           
          together.  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).  Therefore, we will consider the rejection           
          against independent claim 1 as representative of all the claims             
          on appeal.                                                                  
          In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is                            
          incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to                 
          support the legal conclusion of obviousness.  See In re Fine, 837           
          F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  In so               
          doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual                         
          determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,           
          17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one               
          having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to           
          modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive           
          at the claimed invention.  Such reason must stem from some                  
                                          4                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007