Appeal No. 94-3812
Application 07/857,701
Additionally, Dessauer describes "minor amounts", as
appellant acknowledges, and we find the terminology "minor
amount" to mean less than fifty percent. Thus, Dessauer
suggests the claimed loading level of colloidal silica. To
the extent it is appellant's position that Kojima is silent on
the issue of colloidal silica loading, we remind appellant
that where, as here, the rejection is founded on a combination
of references it is improper to consider the references
individually for what they disclose. Rather, the references
must be considered together for what their combined
disclosures would have fairly suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
Although appellant has recognized in his brief that the
examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable from the disclosure of Lucey considered
with Dessauer, we have searched appellant's brief for a
discussion of the appellant's arguments against the rejection
but have found none. Rather, there is a discussion at pages
14 through 17 addressing a rejection of the claims over a
combination of references (Reilly, Jr., taken with Lucey and
Costanza) not before us. It is not until the second full
paragraph on page 17 of the brief that we find any discussion
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007