Appeal No. 1998-1289
Application 07/906,492
The examiner’s conclusion (see pages 2 and 3 in the
final rejection) that the combined teachings of Ware and
Nelson would have suggested the method recited in claim
24
is well founded. Nelson’s description of the economic
and efficiency advantages afforded by the production of
two rims from a so-called “double rim member” would have
provided the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation
to employ similar steps to produce Ware’s rim parts 11,
thereby arriving at the method recited in claim 24. The
appellants’ position to the contrary (see pages 6 through
10 in the main brief and pages 4 and 5 in the reply
brief) essentially rests on alleged individual
deficiencies in Ware and Nelson vis-á-vis the claimed
method. Non-obviousness, however, cannot be established
by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The appellants’ related argument that Ware’s use of a
thermosetting or thermoplastic locking member teaches
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007