Appeal No. 2006-0002
Application No. 09/935,531
of the rejection, 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,
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
1-3. Accordingly, we affirm.
At the outset, we note that Appellants, at page 2 of the
Brief, indicate that appealed claims 1-3 stand or fall together
as a group. Consistent with this indication, Appellants’
arguments in response to the Examiner’s rejection are directed
solely to the features present in independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we will select claim 1 as the representative claim
for appealed claims 1-3 and claims 2 and 3 will stand or fall
with claim 1. 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). Only those arguments actually
made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007