Appeal 2007-2869
Application 10/286,535
Id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The Court noted that “[t]o facilitate review,
this analysis should be made explicit.” Id. (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”)). However, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-27, 42 and 43 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi
and McGaffigan
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-27, 42, and 43 as a group (Appeal Br. 7
and 9-15). Although Appellants separately list the elements of independent claims
1, 10, 16, 20, and 25 on pages 9-12 of the Brief, Appellants do not provide separate
arguments as to why the cited art does not teach or suggest the listed elements. A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
As such, we select claim 1 as a representative claim, and the remaining claims 3-5,
7, 10-27, 42, and 43 stand or fall with claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner held that “[i]t would have been obvious to
an [sic] ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakayanagi to choose any suitable
induction heating device for curing the wound core coating including the induction
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013