Appeal 2006-3299
Application 10/346,878
The Appellants’ arguments regarding the number of references used
to reject claims are not persuasive. Appellants have not addressed the
Examiner’s motivation for combining the cited references. Rather,
Appellants’ discussion of the references individually asserts that some of the
references, for example Hansen and Siegel, only describe straight slits.
Appellants also present arguments directed towards the other references that
do not address the Examiner’s reasons for citing the particular references.
Obviousness cannot be rebutted by attacking references individually where
the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. A
reference must be read, not in isolation but, for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole.
Once a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the
burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence of
nonobviousness to overcome the prima facie case. However, Appellants
have submitted no evidence on this record to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the Examiner. Therefore, we hereby sustain
each of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections before us in this appeal.
Conclusion of Law
Based on the record of this appeal, the Examiner has reasonably
determined that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
this art to modify the sheet protector of the admitted prior art to comprise
curved slits to join the holes of the sheet protector to the edge of the sheet
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013