Appeal No. 2002-1191
Application No. 09/101,175
combine two known materials for their known function. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,
850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980); In re Pinten, 459 F.2d 1053, 1055, 173 USPQ
801, 803 (CCPA 1972); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 507, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA
1972); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971); In re Crockett,
279 F.2d 274, 276, 126 USPQ 186, 188 (CCPA 1960). In the present case, one of ordinary
skill in the art would reasonably expect that a cover layer for a gas sensor when used in
combination, would each produce the same effect as when used individually and would
supplement each other. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also reasonably
expected that using a multi-layer cover would have provide enhanced filtering in the
protection of the gas sensor. “For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a
reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in the Answer,
it is our determination that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the argued claims on appeal.
Obviousness cannot be rebutted by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. A reference must be
read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007