Appeal No. 2005-0267
Application No. 09/982,154
thousands, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill
in the art as long as the prior art teaches the suitability of
the selections. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 425
(CCPA 1971); In re Lemin, 332 F.2d 839, 841, 141 USPQ 814, 815
(CCPA 1964). Appellant has failed to advance any compelling
argument that refutes the basic tenet of the examiner's
rejection, i.e., appellant has not explained why it would have
been nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include
an additional electrically relatively non-insulative polymer
layer in the high voltage cable of Hastings '827 for the purpose
of protecting the cable against damage during transient over-
voltages.
Appellant's principal brief devotes much analysis to each of
the features recited in all the claims on appeal and the
differences between these features and the cables disclosed in
each of the three cited references. As such, appellant's
principal brief is tantamount to attacking the cited references
individually, rather than in combination. It is by now axiomatic
that it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness under § 103
that all the elements or teachings of one reference be fully
combined with those of another reference. In re Griver, 354 F.2d
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007