Appeal No. 1999-1530 Page 8
Application No. 08/728,607
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).
Second, the appellants have argued that Ohta's cover
cannot accommodate a seal. However, this ignores the combined
teachings of the applied prior art which in our opinion would8
have clearly suggested modifying Ohta's cover to accommodate a
seal as suggested and taught by Tsuzuki's cover which has a
seal to provide a water-tight compartment.9
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 11
8 See In re Keller, supra, at 642 F.2d 425, 208 USPQ 881.
9See page 1, lines 18-21, of the appellants'
specification which discusses the teachings of Tsuzuki.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007