Appeal No. 2005-2168 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/122,616
Appellant argues that JP’137 does not describe ionizing the gas stream. We do
not find this argument persuasive because it is directed to JP’137 on an individual basis.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when
the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck
& Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this regard,
JP’137 is not being relied on for teaching ionization of the stream, rather JP’575 is relied
on for teaching this feature. As we stated above, JP'575 does describe ionizing the
stream.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5. We
will likewise sustain the rejection
of claims 7, 9, 10.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007