Appeal No. 2006-0301 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/837,932
make the contrast panel 19 reflective and appellant has not specifically challenged that
determination. Rather, appellant argues that, because Torrence does not disclose an
electrical light source emitter, when emitting light, substantially contacting the eroded
transparent or translucent glass member, Torrence teaches away from the combination
of the Schöniger and Torrence patents. This argument is not at all well taken.
First, we note that Torrence is not relied upon for a teaching of contact between
the light source and the transparent or translucent glass member and 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). Further, as to the
specific question of "teaching away," a reference may be said to teach away when a
person of ordinary skill, upon examining the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31
USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this instance, we see nothing in Torrence's
lack of disclosure of contact between the light source and the transparent or translucent
glass member which would have discouraged a person of ordinary skill in the art from
using a reflective opaque member as the contrast panel 19 of Schöniger.
For the reasons stated above, appellant's arguments in the brief and reply brief
fail to persuade us of any error on the part of the examiner in rejecting representative
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007