Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 20
Application No. 08/400,129
motivation for modifying Alexander. In this case, we have 5
concluded that for the reasons set forth above, the combined
teachings of Alexander, Albert and Hutt do provide the
necessary teaching, reason, suggestion, and motivation to have
combined their existing elements to produce the claimed
invention.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The appellant has grouped claims 4 to 6 as standing or
falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR6
§ 1.192(c)(7), claims 5 and 6 fall with claim 4. Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 5
and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
5As noted previously, the law does not require that the
references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor.
6See page 7 of the appellant's brief.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007