Appeal No. 98-0588
Application 08/501,293
to rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. The
appellants merely argue against the references individually
and do not focus on the combination of the references.
Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 21,
24-37, 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reddersen in view of
Tymes, Tremmel, Moellering and Shepard is affirmed.
Claims 22, 23 and 38
The appellants separately argue the features recited in
claims 22 and 38 and also separately argue the features
recited in claim 23. (Paper No. 17 at 8 and 9). As to these
additional limitations, the examiner has failed to make a
prima facie case of obviousness. Because the examiner has
failed to show how either Reddersen or Tymes meet the
additional limitations of claims 22, 23, and 38, the
obviousness rejection of claims 22, 23 and 38 is reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007