Appeal No. 2006-0600 7
Application No. 10/163,249
taken as a whole, as we believe there is in this case, the law does
not require that the references be combined for the particular
reasons contemplated by appellant. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillion, 919 F.2d 688,
16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976). Thus, appellant’s arguments in the brief
and reply brief that the applied references to Overby, Dawda and
Cummings do not address appellant’s problem and would not have been
combined so as to solve appellant’s problem, are not persuasive.
The examiner’s rationale of improved axial load capability for
the bushing of Overby, i.e., in order to be able to sustain many
cycles of considerable axial load without deteriorating the primary
isolation function, as the stated basis for the combination of the
applied references remains essentially unrebutted by appellant.
Appellant’s mere statement in the reply brief that “[t]here is
nothing in Overby or Dawda, et al. which supports the examiner’s
position” or the examiner’s reasoning for combining the references,
without an explanation of why, is wholly inadequate to address this
rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007