Appeal No. 1999-0337
Application 08/323,839
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, the appellants’ teach-away argument lacks
conviction because it fails to take into account Booth’s
disclosure of the independent addition of chemicals to divided
interior stock flows downstream of a common source.
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable
over Beck in view of Booth, but not the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 1 and 17, or of claims 2, 3, 10, 12,
14 which depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Beck
in view of Booth.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 9, 11, 13 and 15, which depend from claim
5, as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Booth since the
appellants have not argued such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall
with parent claim 5 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claims 6, 7 and 16 depend from claim 5 and further
require the addition of a chemical (claims 6 and 7) or of
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007