Appeal No. 96-3741
Application No. 08/177,288
Fronheiser references upon which the rejection is based. It
is well settled that applicants can not show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re
Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
Additionally, the appellants remark that “from the Figure in
the German reference, it is not obvious that a vacuum box
could be physically inserted into it at all” (brief, page 11).
Nevertheless, it is also well settled that, to justify
combining reference teachings in support of a rejection, it is
not necessary that a device (such as the vacuum box of
Fronheiser) shown in one reference can be physically inserted
into the device shown in the other reference (i.e., German
‘402). In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). Accordingly, the section 103 rejection of claim
15 as being unpatentable over German ‘402 in view of
Fronheiser likewise will be sustained.
However, we can not sustain the examiner’s section 103
rejection of claims 7 and 9 as being unpatentable over German
‘402 in view of Research Disclosure. As correctly indicated
by the appellants, the applied references simply do not show
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007