Appeal No. 2005-0194 Page 5
Application No. 09/867,859
additional evidence that the claimed invention is not obvious over the prior art.
However, it is well established that the mere age of the references is not persuasive of
the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that,
notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the
problem. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977); In re
Neal, 481 F.2d 1346, 1347, 179 USPQ 56, 57 (CCPA 1973); In re McGuire, 416 F.2d
1322, 1327, 163 USPQ 417, 421 (CCPA 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 989 (1970).
Appellant has provided no such evidence in this case.
We also affirm the rejections of claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable over Rubin
in view of Neidenberg and Davidson, claim 6 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view
of Neidenberg and Nilssen, claims 7, 8, 14 and 15 as being unpatentable over Rubin in
view of Neidenberg and Race and claims 11 and 12 as being unpatentable over Rubin
in view of Neidenberg, McNaught and Edwards since the appellant has not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007