Appeal 2007-1288
Application 10/195,744
line of reasoning in the Answer that the basis for the obviousness rejection is
the combination of Minowa and Grosseau. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091,
1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We further find no error in the Examiner’s establishment (Answer 4)
of proper motivation for the combination of Minowa and Grosseau. In our
view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated
that the inclusion of the wheel locking prevention teachings of Grosseau,
which are based on detection of varying deceleration detection thresholds,
would serve as an obvious enhancement to the system of Minowa.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 17 and 18 based on the combination of Minowa and
Grosseau is sustained.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejections of all the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1, 9, 17, and 18 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013