Appeal 2007-1463 Page 21
Application 10/083,492
D. Analysis
Appellants argue that Keller does not show forcibly screwing the screws
into the plate. However, the Examiner also applied Vitali and showed that
forcibly screwing is taught in that reference. The Examiner sought to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness based on what the combined teachings of the
references would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Whether or not an individual
reference teaches a specific element of the claimed assembly is not dispositive
of the question of obviousness. 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).
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Claim 2
Claim 2 reads as follows:
Claim 2. A retaining assembly according to claim 1, wherein the plate is
located on a lower portion of the disk.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013