Appeal 2006-1679
Application 09/853,568
properly relied as providing evidence that the software products referenced
therein were “first installed” or “released” more than one year prior to
Applicant’s filing date).
Finally, we note that non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
ANALYSIS
As noted above in our findings of fact, we did not find any passage
from the Specification or any Figure that conveys possession of the subject
matter of a label having only a non-textual descriptive graphic icon thereon.
Accordingly, it was our finding that the Examiner has established that
Appellant does not have written description support for a limitation in claim
22. Claims 23-26 will fall with claim 22.
As noted above, our findings of fact reveal that Griffiths discloses a
label for a prescription medicine that is capable of being mounted to the
prescription medicine receptacle, in this case a prescription bottle. We have
further noted that Walgreens discloses a label having a picture of the
stomach, and that picture alone, i.e., by itself, identifies the medicine in the
bottle as being stomach medicine, as required by claim 19. In our view it
would have been obvious to place a label such as the AcidFree label shown
in Walgreens on a prescription bottle such as the bottle shown in Griffiths.
We note that the only difference between the Walgreens bottle and the
claimed subject matter is that the Walgreens bottle is an over-the-counter
medication rather than a prescription medication.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013