Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 15
Application No. 08/839,843
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the
next inquiry is whether the subject matter is obvious. "’A prima
facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’" In re
Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976)). Furthermore, “[n]on-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ
375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).
Here, the rejection is based on a combination of Saito and
Drake. As explained regarding the first point of contention,
Saito teaches that materials such as titanium may be used for its
layer 14. As also explained regarding the first pont of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007