Appeal No. 2005-1662
Application No. 09/996,505
invention, would have selected these components for combination
in the manner claimed. Id.
Here, the prior art statements identified by the examiner
such as Polak’s statements regarding SZC may appear in the
abstract to suggest combining the prior art teachings in the
manner proposed by the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
However, when considered in the context of the prior art
teachings as a whole, these statements would not have provided
the motivation for combining the applied prior art teachings in
such a manner as to yield the sorbent cartridge defined by these
independent claims. Id., 217 F.3d at 1371, 55 USPQ2d at 1318.
For the above stated reasons, it is our determination that
the prior art REDY™ cartridge and the Polak reference fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
appealed claims 1 and 11. This deficiency is not supplied by the
other prior art applied against the remaining claims on appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007