Appeal No. 2001-1210 Page 11
Application No. 09/255,990
established that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
Second, all of the teachings of Grindley and Takeuchi need not be bodily incorporated
into Wood since the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior
art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. In this case,
we find sufficient motivation in Grindley as set forth above with respect to claim 1 for a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified
Wood's method of cleaning and printing a web to a method of cleaning and printing
sheets and we find sufficient motivation in Takeuchi for a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to have further modified Wood's method by
cleaning one side of the paper sheet then the other side of the paper sheet instead of
simultaneously.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 6 to 8
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6 to 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007