Ex parte CAMPO et al. - Page 11

          Appeal No. 96-3555                                                          
          Application No. 08/297,021                                                  

          washing system as suggested by Weihe and Clague.  The economic              
          advantage of recirculating rinse water as well as providing                 
          stations for pre-wash, wash, rinse and final rinse are well known           
          expedients in this art as shown by Weihe and Clague.  Thus,                 
          contrary to the appellants' arguments, it is our view that the              
          examiner did not engage in the use of impressible hindsight in              
          rejecting claim 51.                                                         

               We note that the appellants' arguments concerning (1) the              
          separation of the zones from each other (brief, pp. 12 and 15),             
          (2) the degree of cleanliness achieved (brief, pp. 12-13),                  
          (3) air curtains (brief, pp. 15-16), and (4) demagnetizing the              
          blades (brief, pp. 16-17) are not commensurate in scope with                
          claim 51.  Additionally, as to the argued deficiencies of each              
          reference on an individual basis, we note that nonobviousness               
          cannot be established by attacking the references individually              
          when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art            
          disclosures.  See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,              
          231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).                                         


Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007