Appeal No. 2007-0056 Page 13
Application No. 09/906,511
combination of Kosako, ‘211, and ‘978 to measure particle size distribution as a
function of time as taught by Chandler.
On reflection, we find no error in the examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the evidentiary burden was properly shifted to
appellants. For the foregoing reasons, we find that appellants failed to carry their
burden. Therefore we affirm the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kosako, ‘221, ‘978, and Chandler.
As set forth above, claims 4-6 fall together with claim 3.
The combination of Kosako, ‘221, ‘978, and Hansen:
Claims 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kosako, ‘221, ‘978, and Hansen.
Appellants do not separately group or argue the claims. Accordingly, the claims
will stand or fall together. Since all claims stand or fall together, we limit our
discussion to representative claim 8. Claims 9-13 stand or fall together with
claim 8. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
Claim 8 depends from and further limits the insoluble particles of claim 1
to those selected from the group consisting of polystyrene, acrylonitrile,
polybutadiene, acrylamide, methacrylate, nylon, metals, metal oxides and their
derivatives, glass, dextran, cellulose, red blood cells, pollens, liposomes, and
bacteria.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013