Ex Parte Beauchaine et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2005-1139                                            3           
          Application No. 10/410,792                                                  

                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,             
          the rejection advanced by the examiner 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, the appellants’                    
          arguments set forth in the brief 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             
          37-40.  Accordingly, we affirm.                                             
               Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal             
          the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group                
          [brief, page 3].  Consistent with this indication appellants have           
          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           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007