Appeal No. 2006-0772
Application No. 09/731,945
Appellants further contend that "[t]he rejection should also
be withdrawn simply by recognizing that the skilled artisan would
never combine teachings from five different references" (page 10
of principal brief, last sentence). However, it is well settled
that the number of references relied upon does not, in itself,
militate against a conclusion of obviousness within the meaning
of § 103. Manifestly, if a claim recites five conventional
features, it may well require five separate references to
establish their obviousness. In the present case, inasmuch as
the applied references are all directed to vacuum molding
processes, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have routinely resorted to their disclosures in making
obvious modifications to the vacuum bag molding process of
Johnson. We note that appellants base no argument upon objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
attaches criticality to any of the claimed features either alone
or in combination.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, it is our judgment that the evidence of
obviousness presented by the examiner outweighs the arguments for
nonobviousness presented by appellants. Accordingly, the
examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007