Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections 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 Morishita fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 223 and 511. 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 225 and 228-237, 247-250, 496, 499-510, and 512-515.
Accordingly, we affirm.
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate (Brief, page
3) that, for purposes of this appeal, all claims will stand or
fall together. Consistent with this indication, Appellants’
arguments in the Brief are directed solely to features which are
set forth in independent claim 223. Accordingly, we will select
independent claim 223 as the representative claim for all the
claims on appeal, and claims 225, 228-237, 247-250, 496, and 499-
515 will stand or fall with claim 223. 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).
We note that anticipation is established only when a single
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007