Siemens loses appeal to Board
Appellants’ argument that the cited prior art, collectively, fails to teach the disputed limitation unpersuasively focuses only on the teaching of Ingley. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)(finding that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references); see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants’ remaining arguments are likewise unpersuasive. For example, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner’s finding of obviousness would require “leaving [Ingley’s] transponder 430 in place.” (Reply Br. 3.) “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.