Appeal No. 2001-1186
Application No. 08/819,609
Breed all exist in the algorithm development procedure disclosed
by G. I. Cohn. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the above reasons, it is our opinion that, since the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been rebutted
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 16, as
well as dependent claims 19 and 20 grouped together with claim
16 and not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. We
note that the Examiner, in the statement of the grounds of
rejection of claim 16 (final Office action, page 7), has included
the Grills reference, ostensibly for a disclosure of tank fuel
level determination using multiple load sensors. Since
independent claim 16, however, has no recitation directed to the
use of load sensors, we therefore sustain the rejection of claims
16, 19, and 20 based solely on the combination of G. I. Cohn and
Breed.2
2The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by the Examiner
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
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007