Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 15
Application No. 10/437,840
that the rejection of claim 2 should be reversed.
As for the rejections of claims 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view
of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of Misaresh and claims 1 and 3-6 as being
unpatentable over Misaresh in view of Fraser, appellant’s arguments appear to be
directed solely to the disclosure of Fraser and Misaresh, respectively, without
consideration of the teachings of the additional references applied. It is well established
that nonobiousness 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). Such argument
does not persuade me that either of these rejections should be reversed.
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS
) AND
) INTERFERENCES
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007