Appeal No. 1999-0046
Application No. 08/442,103
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex parte Rosenfeld, 130
USPQ 113, 115 (Bd. App. 1961).
One of the strongest reasons for non-combinability of
references exists when the teachings of one of the proposed
references flies in the face of the teachings of the other and
would be in contradiction thereof. Such is the case with
respect to Meijburg and AP as discussed above. As stated by
our court of review in Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988), “it
is impermissible to use the claims as a frame and the prior
art references as a mosaic to piece together a facsimile of
the claimed invention.” In our opinion, this is exactly what
the examiner has done in arriving at the subject matter of
claim 34. We are therefore unable to agree with the examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at
the subject matter of claim 34, or claims 35-43, 48, 49, 51,
52, 54 and 64-67 that depend therefrom, based on the teachings
of Meijburg and AP.
With respect to the remainder of the standing rejections
under § 103 (rejections (b) through (h)), each of these
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007