Appeal No. 2001-1209
Application No. 09/106,281
Appellants’ arguments in response to the obviousness
rejection initially assert that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the
claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied
prior art references. After careful review of the applied
Fukumoto and Pfeuffer references in light of the arguments of
record, we find Appellants’ assertions to be unpersuasive. In
our view, Appellants’ arguments unpersuasively focus on the
individual differences between the limitations of representative
claim 2 and each of the applied references. It is apparent,
however, from the Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer,
that the basis for the obviousness rejection is the combination
of Fukumoto and Pfeuffer. 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., Inc., 800 F. 2d
1091, 1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In other words, while Appellants contend that Fukumoto “...
does not have a temperature sensor, nor the processing means for
setting the rotational speed of the platen roller based on the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007