Appeal No. 2001-0088 Page 15
Application No. 09/271,571
suggests remotely controlling a pedal drive assembly or use of
a memory device to remember pedal position that can be
remotely actuated. The appellants' argument is unpersuasive
for the following two reasons.
First, while the appellants have pointed out the
deficiencies of each reference on an individual basis, 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).
Second, it is our conclusion that the subject matter of
claim 16 would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art from the
combined teachings of Cicotte and Murphy. In that regard,
Murphy clearly teaches and suggests that other appropriate
positioning devices may be incorporated in the vehicle and
Cicotte clearly teaches and suggests to utilize his control
pedal apparatus which allows the pedal to be selectively
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007