Appeal No. 2005-1492
Application No. 10/082,375
arguments amount to an inappropriate attack of the references
considered individually. It is well settled, however, that
nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking individual references
where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882
(CCPA 1981). This is because, with respect to such a rejection,
the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art. Id., 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881. For the reasons
expressed above and in the Answer, the combined teachings of
Ostrowski and Maddox would have suggested the provision under
consideration.
Concerning dependent claim 8 (as well as claim 9 which
depends therefrom), the appellants further argue that the applied
references contain no teaching or suggestion of effecting the
washing, rinsing and drying steps of Ostrowski’s process while
patentee’s tubing or material is under tension as here claimed.
In this regard, the appellants emphasize that patentee’s tubing
is supported by rollers during the washing, rinsing and drying
steps. While this last point is true, it does not militate in
favor of patentability for claim 8. This is so for two reasons.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007