Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1881). 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). We view appellant's argument as an attack
on Heffington individually.
We agree that Heffington does not show the support rods
15 attached to a frame on which buttocks support panels are
mounted. However, Michelson '943 clearly shows a plurality of
mounting rods or legs 42 extending downwardly from the bottom
horizontal members 16 of a frame on which buttocks support
panels are mounted. The examiner cited Heffington as evidence
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellant's invention to substitute
support rods having lateral off-sets for the straight rods or
legs 42 taught by
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007