Appeal No. 1999-2537 Page 13
Application No. 08/619,269
The arguments advanced by the appellants (brief, pp. 8-
11, and reply brief, pp. 3-5) are unpersuasive for the
following reasons. First, the appellants have argued
deficiencies of each reference on an individual basis,
however, it is well-settled that nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Secondly, we note that
all of the features of the secondary reference need not be
bodily incorporated into the primary reference (see In re
Keller, supra, at 642 F.2d 425, 208 USPQ 881) and the artisan
is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior
art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip
Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). Lastly, we note that while there must be some
teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine
existing elements to produce the claimed device, it is not
necessary that the cited references or prior art specifically
suggest making the combination (see B.F. Goodrich Co. v.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007