Appeal 2006-0546
Application 10/066,921
basis for the obviousness rejection is the combination of Malin with either Ausnit
or Belmont.
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981). In this regard, the
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
In this appeal, the Appellants have not contested with any reasonable
specificity the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion based on the combined
teachings of the applied references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Malin in view of Ausnit or Belmont.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007