Appeal No. 2005-0239
Application No. 10/145,421
devote much analysis to the differences between the claimed
features and each of the two applied prior art references. Id.
In other words, the appellants’ arguments generally attack the
applied prior art references individually. However, the
obviousness test under Section 103 is not what the prior art
references individually teach, but what their combined teachings
would have fairly suggested to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). When the prior art references in question are
collectively considered, we determine that there is ample
suggestion to arrive at the claimed subject matter as indicated
supra.
Having determined that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness, we look to any secondary evidence
relied upon by the appellants. The appellants do not rely on any
secondary evidence, much less provide any argument directed to
it, to rebut the prima facie case established by the examiner.
Although the appellants, for example, refer to the advantage
asserted in the specification, they do not argue, much less show,
it to be unexpected. See the Reply Brief, page 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007