Appeal 2007-1555
Application 09/900,442
concerned, then the art is “analogous”).
The criteria for combining references is not the number of references, “but
what they would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected the claims holding that a person having ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to use the full frame weather stripping of
Fehr along with the horizontal and vertical adjustable hinges of Hellstrom and
Snyder, respectively, in the entryway system of Headrick.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) using the combination of Headrick, Fehr, Hellstrom, and Snyder.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments as to the separate
patentability of claims 2, 3, and 8-15 that depend from claim 1, which is the sole
independent claim among those claims. Claims 2, 3, and 8-15 thus fall with claim
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006).
To the extent Appellants’ arguments to claims 47 and 48 are limited only to
addressing the improper combining of Fehr and Hellstrom1 [sic, Headrick], we
1 The Appeal Brief on page 13 indicates Appellants previously argued the improper
combining of Fehr and Hellstrom, but the only previous argument found in the
Appeal Brief addresses the improper combining of references with respect to Fehr
and Headrick on pages 10-12, but does not reference Hellstrom, so we assume
Appellants meant Headrick.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013