Appeal No. 1998-2213
Application 08/655,863
The appellants argue that Kurimura discloses a single vacuum
pressure detector (30) for multiple suction means (37A-D), i.e.,
a shared pressure monitor, whereas the appellants use independent
pressure monitors (brief, page 5; reply brief, pages 1-2).
Kurimura’s pressure detector has a number of vacuum openings
(37A-D), but these vacuum openings are all used to hold the same
specimen slide. Likewise, the appellants can use a number of
vacuum openings to hold the same analysis film, as indicated by
the appellants’ figures 5 and 6A-C and the related discussion in
the specification (page 13, line 18 - page 14, line 23). Thus,
Kurimura, like the appellants, uses one pressure detector for one
suction means.
The appellants argue that neither the device of Sugaya nor
that of Kurimura has the capability of locating a suction
malfunction in a system having a plurality of suction applying
orifices and passageways (brief, page ). The deficiency in this
argument is that 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). As discussed above, the applied references in
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007