Appeal No. 97-2456
Application 08/424,064
increments of successive groups match one another to facilitate
the reading of the device would have furnished the artisan with
ample suggestion to modify the Jones device in the manner
proposed by the examiner. The appellant’s various arguments that
the references would not have suggested this combination, and in
fact teach away therefrom, are not persuasive because they are
predicated on the alleged shortcomings of each reference vis-a-
vis the claimed invention. Non-obviousness, however, cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ
375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of
Glaese.
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 3, 7 through 9, 12 and 16 as being unpatentable over Jones
in view of Glaese, and the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 6 and 15 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of
Glaese and Hamalainen since the appellant has indicated that
these claims stand or fall together with claim 1 for purposes of
this appeal (see page 5 in the main brief).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007