Appeal No. 2004-1332
Application No. 10/010,691
mechanism by which such performance is achieved. Apparently, at
the time this application was filed, the Appellant believed those
skilled in the art would be able to practice his invention not
withstanding the aforementioned lack of specificity. From our
perspective, if those skilled in the art would be able to
effectuate the Appellant’s statistical analysis feature based on
his specification disclosure, certainly these artisans likewise
would be able to practice the statistical analysis feature of
Barrett based on patentee’s more complete disclosure.
In addition to the above, we observe that the Appellant
presents the unembellished statement that “the Barrett...reference
does not disclose a controller for activating a pump based on a
statistical analysis of control signal timing (see claim 1)”
(brief, page 5). Presumably, the Appellant advanced this statement
in an attempt to show nonobviousness. However, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection, as here, is based on a combination of references. This
is because the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the applied references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881-82 (CCPA 1981).
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007