Appeal No. 2001-0925
Application No. 08/897,401
17 based on the sole teachings of Le Gall.1 In sustaining a
multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board may
rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new
ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ
263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2,
150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966). The obviousness rejection of
claims 23 through 25 and 31 through 33 is likewise sustained
because appellants have not presented any patentability arguments
for these claims.
The obviousness rejection of claims 21, 29 and 34 is
sustained because Le Gall teaches “installing only necessary
filters from a comprehensive filter library within a filter
stack” (brief, page 12). The obviousness rejection of claims 22,
30 and 35 is sustained because Le Gall teaches “serially
connecting filters within a filter stack” (brief, page 13).
The obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 26 is reversed
because the examiner’s reasoning (answer, pages 6 through 8)
falls far short of a convincing line of reasoning for modifying
the implicit request in Le Gall to correspond to the specifically
recited request in the claims on appeal.
1 The teachings of Baroody are merely cumulative to those
already found in Le Gall.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007