Appeal No. 2000-0487 Page 12
Application No. 08/856,228
Third, the appellant has argued deficiencies of each
reference on an individual basis, however, it is well settled
that 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).
Fourth, we agree with the appellant that the combined
teachings of Jones and Lee would not have suggested the
claimed invention and that it would not have been obvious to
place the Jones' tray inside the carton of Chaussadas.
However, it is our opinion that when the combined teachings of
the Jones and Chaussadas are considered, it would have been 4
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to modify Jones' package to have a
top panel keel as suggested and taught by Chaussadas for the
self-evident advantages thereof.
4Thus, we regard the examiner's application of the
teachings of Lee to be mere surplusage.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007