Appeal No. 2005-0214
Application No. 09/742,653
page 7.
Appellant’s response to the examiner’s rejection begins on
page 8 of the brief. On page 9 of the brief, appellant argues
that Rusincovitch’s solution is to print spacers on the surface
of a release liner, and that Rusincovitch does not teach or
suggest printing non-adhesive material forms into the surface of
the release liner, and then embedding the non-adhesive material
forms so that the top surface of the non-adhesive material forms
is even with or below the top of the release surface of the
release liner.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation provided by
Rusincovitch, because (1) Rusincovitch specifically acknowledges
the deficiencies of Calhoun ‘790, and (2) Rusincovitch’s solution
to the deficiencies of Calhoun ‘790 is to replace the spaced
clumps of particles of Calhoun ‘790, with spacers of ink printed
on the release liner. Appellant further argues that Rusincovitch
fails to teach the further modification of embedding the spacers
of ink into the release liner or to suggest the desirability of
such a modification. Brief, page 10.
We are not convinced by such argument. We note that one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejection is based on the combined
teachings of the references. As explained by the Court in In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981):
The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; nor is
it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested
in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007