Appeal No. 95-4369
Application 08/117,242
analyzed, whereas in Bowen the laser is a low energy laser which
is used for conducting Raman spectroscopy for analyzing
contaminant components in liquid or gaseous media. The
appellants argue that remotely locating the laser is against the
teaching of Jowitt. The appellants also argue that Bowen’s in-
situ analysis of materials teaches away from the present
invention in which the analysis is accomplished at a remote
location. These arguments fail to demonstrate error in the
examiner’s position.
One cannot attack references individually where the
rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references as
a whole. One cannot attack reference showings individually.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ 725,
728 (CCPA 1968). The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Bowen was relied on merely to show that a laser does not
have to be located at the precise location where its emission is
applied. Rather, it may be remotely located and its emission can
be channeled to the site of application through an optical fiber.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007