Appeal 2007-1934
Application 09/993,443
1 invention (FFs 20-24). Attacking references individually, when the rejection
2 is based on a combination of references is not particularly helpful.
3 Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
4 individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
5 combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
6 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
7 For example, Applicant’s argument that Anguera ‘191 does not
8 describe positioning the drill and pin press on opposing edges of the wooden
9 boards with their respective axes substantially aligned is not helpful. The
10 Examiner acknowledged that the Anguera ‘191 drill and pin press are not
11 aligned as claimed, but explained that one of ordinary skill knew that
12 aligning the machines would expedite the process, citing to Lewis. Lewis
13 specifically describes aligning the drill and pin press as claimed (FFs 13, 14,
14 and 18). Even the Applicant acknowledges as much (FF 21). Thus, the
15 inquiry becomes would it have been obvious to combine Lewis and Anguera
16 ‘191, not whether each and every individual reference describes each and
17 every claimed limitation. The Examiner’s rejection is based on obviousness,
18 not anticipation. For these reasons, Applicant’s attack of the references
19 individually is without merit, and we need not and will not address
20 Applicant’s arguments in that respect.
21 Applicant disagrees with the Examiner that Anguera ‘191 describes
22 compressing the boards vertically and transversely (FF 20(b)). The
23 Examiner found that Anguera’s “clamping” includes “compressing” (FFs 5
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013