Appeal No. 1997-1117
Application No. 08/300,703
Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is, therefore,
upon Appellant to come forward with evidence or arguments
which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. Arguments which Appellant could have made but
elected not to make in the Brief have not been considered in
this decision (note 37 CFR § 1.192).
Appellant’s initial argument in response to the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 (Brief, pages 5 and 6)
asserts the individual deficiencies of Warren, Elliot, and
Fumanelli in disclosing the various limitations of the claim.
However, the Examiner has utilized these references in
combination with each other along with Harder and Weiss. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant further attacks the Examiner’s proposed
combination by contending that the applied references are from
relatively diverse arts and involve diverse technologies
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007