Appeal No. 2003-2098 Page 13
Application No. 09/833,978
communication with the ground prong in view of Osika's teaching of the use of a
ground receptacle in electrical communication with a ground prong. In that regard,
it must be borne in mind that where two known alternatives are interchangeable for their
desired function, an express suggestion of the desirability of the substitution of one for
the other is not needed to render such substitution obvious. See In re Fout, 675 F.2d
297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568, 152
USPQ 618, 619 (CCPA 1967). In this case, the applied prior art establishes that both
two prong plugs and receptacles and three prong plugs and receptacles were known
alternatives. Lastly, one skilled in this art would readily appreciate that the addition of a
ground prong and a ground receptacle to Freeman's adapter improves both the safety
of the adapter and the adaptability of the adapter (the ability to accept both two prong
plugs and three prong plugs).
Thus, we find ourselves in disagreement with the appellant's argument (brief, p.
7) that the subject matter of claim 2 is not suggested by the teachings of Freeman and
Osika. The appellant has pointed out the deficiency 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). In this case, the appellant has not cogently
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007