Appeal No. 2000-0018
Application No. 08/860,941
Hence, we are not convinced by the appellants’ argument.
The appellants argue that each of Watson and Chapple does
not disclose every element of the claimed invention (brief,
pages 6 and 9-10; reply brief, page 5). The deficiency in
this argument is that the appellants are attacking the
references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754,
757-58, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968). Watson in combination
with the other applied references, as discussed above, would
have fairly suggested the composition recited in the
appellants’ claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The appellants argue that Kasturi does not disclose the
claimed invention in an example (brief, pages 6-7). Kasturi,
however, is not limited to its examples. See In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA
1982); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA
1972). Instead, all disclosures in the reference must be
evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965,
7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007