Appeal No. 2005-1384
Application 09/886,200
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 414, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
Turning to topic D at page 5 of the Request for Rehearing,
the focus of the reasoning here is the examiner’s alleged failure
to present a reasonable expectation of success of combining
Kikuchi with the IBM disclosure bulletin. This is not the
rejection the examiner set forth under the second stated
rejection which we discussed at pages 9 through 11 of our prior
decision. We affirmed the rejection alternatively in view of
Kikuchi and Ohsawa or Kikuchi in view of Ohsawa, further in view
of IBM. We considered IBM to be cumulative to what was already
taught in the other two references. Appellant’s arguments here
did not question our own analysis on Request for Rehearing but
only that of the examiner. Appellant’s urging at page 15 of the
principal brief on appeal makes no mention of Ohsawa as a
reference which is a part of the rejection. Our extensive
analysis from pages 3 through 11 in our prior decision relating
to the combination of Kikuchi and Ohsawa plainly sets forth a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007