Ex Parte Sielagoski et al - Page 8

                 Appeal 2007-1288                                                                                     
                 Application 10/195,744                                                                               
                 line of reasoning in the Answer that the basis for the obviousness rejection is                      
                 the combination of Minowa and Grosseau.  One cannot show                                             
                 nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are                         
                 based on combinations of references.  In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208                          
                 USPQ 871, 881(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091,                                   
                 1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).                                                            
                        We further find no error in the Examiner’s establishment (Answer 4)                           
                 of proper motivation for the combination of Minowa and Grosseau.  In our                             
                 view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated                           
                 that the inclusion of the wheel locking prevention teachings of Grosseau,                            
                 which are based on detection of varying deceleration detection thresholds,                           
                 would serve as an obvious enhancement to the system of Minowa.                                       
                        For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s                            
                 prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing                              
                 arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of                            
                 dependent claims 17 and 18 based on the combination of Minowa and                                    
                 Grosseau is sustained.                                                                               

                                                  CONCLUSION                                                          
                        In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejections of all the                            
                 claims on appeal.  Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims                          
                 1, 9, 17, and 18 is affirmed.                                                                        






                                                          8                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013