Appeal No. 1998-3389
Application No. 08/386,794
previously stated. Thus, the teachings of the other references
are merely cumulative to those already found in Jongenelis.
Although the examiner has not provided adequate motivation
to combine the references in the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, we
will still sustain the rejection based upon the teachings of
Jongenelis. In affirming a multiple reference rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on one reference alone in an
obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground of
rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67
(CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150 USPQ 441,
444, n.2 (CCPA 1966).
The appellant has not argued any other inadequacies of the
references in this matter. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a) states that
"[a]ny arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be
refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007