Ex Parte Nuttall - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2005-0788                                                             
          Application 09/757,951                                                           

          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                             
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective details thereof.                                                      
          OPINION                                                                          
          We have carefully considered the subject matter on                               
          appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence                  
          of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the                   
          rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                           
          consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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 does not support the examiner’s                
          rejection of the claims on appeal.  Accordingly, we reverse.                     
          Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal                         
          the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group                     
          [brief, page 4].  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                
                                           -3-                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007