Appeal No. 1998-2924
Application NO. 08/276,290
We note that Appellants do not contest the combinability
of the prior art references. Although Appellants, on page 43
of Argument, assert that "the Examiner has failed to show
where in the prior art . . . there is any teaching to combine
the references . . .," Appellants do not further explain why
the references, taken as a whole, do not suggest the claimed
subject matter, nor do Appellants explain why features
disclosed in one reference may not properly be combined with
features disclosed in another reference.
Rule 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(8)(iv) requires in part:
If the rejection is based upon a combination of
references, the argument shall explain why the
references, taken as a whole, do not suggest the
claimed subject matter, and shall include, as may be
appropriate, an explanation of why features
disclosed in one reference may not properly be
combined with features disclosed in another
reference. A general argument that all the
limitations are not described in a single reference
does not satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
July 1, 1996, as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17,
1995). Appellants' assertions constitute general arguments
that fail to satisfy the rule requirements.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007