Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 11
Application No. 08/110,269
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the appellant’s invention. The appellant erred in
ignoring “the relevant combined teachings of the references."
In re Andersen, 55 CCPA 1014, 391 F.2d 953, 958, 157 USPQ 277,
281 (CCPA 1968) (dismissing the argument that a combination
would result in an inoperative structure). Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 5, the appellant merely argues, “[a]s
discussed above, the combined references do not lead to claim
1, from which claim 5 depends. Claim 5 depends from an
allowable claim.” (Appeal Br. at 33.) In short, he relies on
his arguments regrading claim 1. We rejected these arguments
as aforementioned. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 5.
The appellant neglects to address the rejection of claim
15. Accordingly, he has not shown error in the rejection.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, the appellant merely states,
“[t]he discussion above applies to claims 25 and 26.” (Appeal
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007