Appeal 2007-1856
Application 10/808,652
Gerondale to include Baudin’s concave and convex mating surfaces between the
tip 7 and the cap 4 of Gerondale (FF 7). If Gerondale described all the limitations,
then the Examiner would have made an anticipation rejection. What Appellants’
argument amounts to is a “divide and conquer” approach—since Gerondale does
not show it all, then the combination of Gerondale and Baudin is “no good.”
Sometime ago, however, binding precedent made clear that an obviousness
rejection cannot be overcome by attacking references individually—which is
precisely what appellants are doing. In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ
725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gerondale in view of Baudin.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 1 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013