Appeal No. 2001-0250 Page 20
Application No. 08/283,074
The combination of references, however, would have
suggested the limitations. "Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ
375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). In determining
obviousness, a reference “must be read, not in isolation, but
for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art
as a whole.” Id., 231 USPQ at 380.
Here, the rejection is based on a combination of Seybert
and Schroeder. As explained to the appellants' representative
at oral hearing, the latter reference teaches producing a
signal representing the cross-sectional area of a confined
volume as a function of distance from an opening therein.
Specifically, Schroeder discloses producing "the area function
of a vowel sound ... and the corresponding band-limited ...
logarithmic area function." P. 1008. Figure 6 of the
reference, moreover, shows that the two functions are
functions of a distance between a person's glottis and lips.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007