Appeal No. 2006-1020
Application No. 09/899,066
or identification of an object of interest for zooming or
tracking in a surveillance operation (Brief at page 19).
This line of argument is immaterial because 35 U.S.C. § 103
does not require the presence of each and every limitation
of the claim in each combined reference in an obviousness-
type rejection. That is, one cannot attack references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination
of references. In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ
375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant has merely pointed to
the deficiencies in the primary reference of the
limitations for which the secondary reference is relied
upon. With respect to appellant’s argument that Chino only
discloses adjusting focus upon insertion or removal of a
filter and not upon selection of a daytime or nighttime
mode (Brief at page 22), we note that the filter of Chino
is inserted or removed upon selection of a daytime or
nighttime mode.
Regarding appellant’s allegation of examiner admission
(Brief at pages 17-18), we note that it is not an admission
to state that the zoom lens of Chino may be incorporated
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007