Appeal No. 98-1183 Page 11
Application No. 08/352,513
First, the appellant argues the deficiencies of each
reference on an individual basis. However, 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).
Next, the appellant argues that subject matter recited in
claim 8 is not suggested by the applied prior art. We do not
agree. As set forth above, we agree with the examiner that
the teachings of Reynolds would have suggested modifying the
trestle of Purves by (1) making the length of the vertical
member adjustable, and (2) providing stop members on the cross
members. The suggestion and motivation for such modifications
come from the teachings of Reynolds, not impermissible
hindsight. In that regard, Reynolds clearly teaches that (1)
the length of his vertical member is adjustable to raise or
lower the height of his cross members, and (2) stop members
are provided on the cross members to prevent lateral movement
of the board or panel supported by the cross members.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007