Appeal No. 2003-2176
Application No. 09/778,460
The Appellant has presented arguments directed to the Erdeljac, Inaba and
Kim considered individually rather than to the combination of the stated references.
These arguments are not persuasive because 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).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is premised on hindsight.
(Brief, p. 13). We are not convinced by Appellant’s argument. The present record
indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
pairing of resistors is generally known. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected that the N-type thin film resistor having a low resistance
region and a P-type thin film resistor having a low resistance region, as described by
Erdeljac, could have been combined together as suggested by the Examiner. It is
well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as
the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected
to draw therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007