Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
board. See Becton Dickinson, 922 F.2d at 800, 17 USPQ2d at
1103.
Appellant’s sole argument (found on page 6 of the brief)
for overturning this rejection is:
Appellant submits that neither Staar or PC magazine
teach or suggest the color transforming means
recited in claims 61 and 69. Claims 70-72, 74 and
75 depend from one of claims 61 and 69 and are
therefore allowable over the Nopp, Havel, PC
Magazine and Staar for the reasons stated above with
respect to claims 61 and 69.
As discussed above, this argument fails because it attacks
the teachings of the references individually, rather than in
combination. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097, 231 USPQ at 380;
Keller,
642 F.2d at 426, 208 USPQ at 882. The claimed color
transforming
means is taught by Nopp as modified by Havel. PC Magazine and
Staar further teach additional elements of certain dependent
claims. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Even if the claims were argued separately, however, they
would have been obvious for the reasons stated by the
25
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007