Appeal 2006-2400
Application 10/051,814
III. REJECTION
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 24 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Pregozen and Noda;
2) Claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Pregozen, Noda, and Rabasco; and
3) Claims 31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Pregozen, Noda, and Mochizuki.
IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We have carefully considered the claims, Specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellant and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions. This review has led us to
conclude that the Examiner’s §103 rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24
through 33 under §103 for the factual findings and conclusion set forth by
the Examiner in the Answer and below.
Under 35 U.S.C. §103, the obviousness of an invention cannot be
established by combining the teachings of the prior art references absent
some teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the combination.
ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577,
221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This does not mean that the cited
prior art references must specifically suggest making the combination.
B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582,
37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401,
1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rather, the test for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007