Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
Appellant's argument on page 11 of the brief with regard to
the age of the references is not well taken, as it is well
established that the mere age of the references is not persuasive
of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings,
absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the
references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem. In re
Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977); In re
Neal, 481 F.2d 1346, 1347, 179 USPQ 56, 57 (CCPA 1973); In re
McGuire, 416 F.2d 1322, 1327, 163 USPQ 417, 421 (CCPA 1969),
cert. denied, 397 U.S. 989 (1970).
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 11 as being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Weureither.
We shall also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12-14 as
being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Weureither since
appellant has not specifically argued separately the
patentability of these claims apart from claim 11. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
See also In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
CONCLUSION
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007