Appeal No. 2002-1674
Application 09/089,901
Moriya. 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, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In other words, while Appellants contend (Brief, pages 6-10)
that the JP 4-141827 reference, in contrast to the claimed
invention, has no disclosure of continuous recording on land and
groove tracks thereby requiring separate evaluations of such
groove and land tracks, the feature of continuous recording
and/or reproducing on alternate land and groove tracks is clearly
taught by Moriya. Similarly, while Appellants contend that
Moriya fails to teach the setting and evaluation of control
parameters after a recording and reproducing cycle, this teaching
is specifically provided by JP 4-141827.
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments in
the Briefs which assert that:
[w]hile the elements of the claimed invention, e.g.,
recording and reproducing from each of the lands and
grooves, may be present in the prior art, none of the
references contains any suggestion which would motivate
a person of skill in the art to select and combine the
presently claimed features as recited in Appellants’
claims. (Brief, pages 17 and 18).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007