Appeal No. 2001-1249
Application 08/658,341
appellant is 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 combined teachings of the references would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, each
of the elements recited in these claims.
We therefore conclude that the appellant’s claimed invention
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm
the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 8, 16, 24-29, 31-34 and 40-44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Schmid, Mullin,
Zehler ‘990, King, Tubbs, Zehler ‘840 and Mores is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007