Appeal No. 2005-2505
Application 09/740,277
With respect to dependent claims 19-26, 34-39, and 42-46,
Appellants attack Jenkins individually as failing to show claimed
features. For example, Appellants argue that Jenkins fails to
teach “a context aware application.” However, French, which is
used in combination with Jenkins, describes on its face such an
application. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426,
208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The effect of
Appellants attack on Jenkins individually is that Appellants have
not presented a separate argument with respect to the actual
rejection of claims 19-26, 34-39, and 42-46 based on the
combination of three reference. Therefore, these claims stand or
fall based on the arguments with respect to the claims from which
they depend.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-49.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007