Appeal No. 2004-0603 Page 5
Application No. 09/713,353
the like device, thereby arriving at the subject matter of claim 19, either with or without
the additional teachings of Ekman.
Ekman further evidences that it was well known at the time of appellant’s
invention to attach a pouch 18, with a cover 18b, to shoulder straps for storage of a
Walkman-type radio or cassette recorder. Thus, in view of the combined teachings of
Fiedler, Miyako and Ekman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide on one of the shoulder straps 3, 4, 9, 10 of Fiedler, a carrying case or
pouch of the type taught by Miyako or Ekman to store a mobile telephone, cassette
recorder or the like device conveniently to arrive at appellant’s invention as recited in
claim 19.
Appellant argues on page 11 of the brief that none of Fiedler, Miyako and Ekman
“discloses or suggests providing a closable pocket on carrying means for a case for
musical instruments or any other case for that matter.” We do not find this argument
persuasive. First, Miyako does disclose providing a closable pocket on the shoulder
strap of a backpack, which is, in our opinion, a case. Moreover, nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when, as in the instant
case, 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 foregoing reasons, we conclude that the combined teachings of Fiedler,
Miyako and Ekman are sufficient to have suggested the subject matter of claim 19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007