Appeal No. 1998-0146
Application 08/407,058
Br17). Appellants argue that Sugano discloses a cleaning
procedure that is intended to operate without the use of
specific cleaning software, that the axial movement is only
a side effect of this goal, and, accordingly, Sugano does
not disclose or suggest any additional benefit gained by
axial movement of the lens other than as a way to make
contact between the lens and the brush without the use of
specific cleaning software or cleaning commands (Br15-16).
It is also argued that the focusing operation in Sugano is
only executed with the lens at a fixed radial position, so
that any radial movement during the focusing operation would
be contrary to the explicit teachings of Sugano (Br17-18).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually
where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
Id. at 426, 208 USPQ at 882. Appellants' arguments would
limit the use of any reference to its express teachings.
This is error. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007