Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 6
Application No. 09/834,499
claim 6 is separately patentable from all other claims on appeal.
It is Appellant’s position that claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-17, and 19-
20 stand or fall together and are separately patentable from
claims 1, 6, 15, and 18.” From the listing of the rejections,
supra, we find that appellant’s third grouping is not consistent
with the rejection as the grouping includes claims rejected under
different grounds. Appellant is entitled, procedurally, to
review of at least one claim for each separate ground of
rejection. Accordingly, we will consider a representative claim
for each different ground of rejection. We begin with the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Takagi.
Turning to claim 1, which is representative of the group, we
note as background that 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, 1073, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007