Appeal No. 1998-1408 Page 13
Application No. 08/569,529
words, the limitations recite elongated conductors printed on
a flexible, dielectric sheet.
The appellants err in considering the references
individually. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)). In determining obviousness, furthermore, a
reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”
Id., 231 USPQ at 380.
Here, the rejection is based on the combination of Sato,
Layton, and Dirks. For its part, Layton teaches elongated
conductors printed on a flexible, dielectric sheet. The
appellants admit, “Layton et al. disclose a flex circuit
comprising a multiplicity of parallel conductors on a
dielectric sheet.” (Appeal Br. at 5.) The secondary
reference specifically discloses “form[ing] a plurality of
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007