Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 17
Application No. 08/204,996
First, the appellants state, “claim 11 includes features
of claims 1-10 in a combination which is different from any of
the combinations set forth in claims 1-10.” (Appeal Br. at
11.) The pages of the appeal brief that precede this
statement contain a multiplicity of arguments regarding claims
1-10. It is unclear to which of these arguments, if any, the
appellants refer. Furthermore, we have rejected the
arguments.
Second, the appellants argue, “the combination of even
two references is untenable and there is even less rationale
for combining four references unless it is solely for the
purpose of meeting the claim through hindsight.” (Appeal Br.
at 12.) The examiner replies, “the number of references does
not have a bearing on the propriety of the rejection ....”
(Examiner’s Answer at 8.) We agree with the examiner.
The appellants err in focussing on the number of
references. Reliance on a large number of references in a
rejection does not of itself weigh against the combination
thereof. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885,
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007