Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 13
Application No. 09/810,943
Second, there is clearly ample suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art to
have modified Research Disclosure so as to arrive at the claimed invention. In that
regard, the motivation to modify Research Disclosure comes from the following
teachings of the applied prior art: (1) Research Disclosure teaching (last sentence) that
"this design can be used with various load cell designs;" (2) Gagnon teaching (column
5, lines 51-53) that the weight sensors may be either a strain gauge, a load cell or a
variable resistance pressure sensor; and (3) Harris teaching that each of his load cells
include a strain gage assembly having a resilient block that flexes freely, thereby
improving system accuracy. From these teachings, we conclude that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to have modified the four load cells of Research Disclosure as suggested and taught
by Harris' load cells having strain gauges mounted on a deflectable resilient block to
thereby improve accuracy. In our view, such a modification of Research Disclosure
clearly arrives at the subject matter of claim 36. While the appellants have pointed out
the deficiencies of each applied reference on an individual basis, the appellants have
not particularly pointed out how claim 36 distinguishes over the above-noted
modification of Research Disclosure. It is well-established that 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).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007