Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
We note that our reviewing court has determined that one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, we agree
with Appellants that Kojima does not teach an aircraft-based component.
However, Kojima must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches
in combination with the prior art as a whole. We find Anghel explicitly
teaches an electric motor control system for use in an aircraft system (col. 1,
l. 53-56). We have fully addressed the issue of motivation supra. Because
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Kojima in view of Anghel.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 13
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3,
5, 10, 11, and 13 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Kojima in view
of Anghel. We have fully addressed the issue of motivation supra. We note
that Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to specific limitations of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 13.
Because Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s prima facie case
of obviousness, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Kojima in view of Anghel.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013