Appeal No. 2002-0993 Page 16
Application No. 09/368,781
With regard to claim 36, while the further limitations of claim 36 are not taught by
Root, the limitations of claim 36 are met when Root is modified by replacing one of
Root's cutting-plates H with an anvil as set forth above.
In view of the above determination of obviousness of the subject matter of claims
35 and 36, we find the appellants' argument that the "only one insert with multiple
cutting edges" is not suggested by the applied prior art unpersuasive. In addition, the
appellants have argued deficiencies of each reference on an individual basis, however,
it is well settled that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
35 and 36 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 5, 8 to 11 and 14
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 5, 8 to 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007