I often see 103 rejections rebutted in essentially the same way a 102 rejection is rebutted: by arguing that one reference (usually the primary reference) does not teach the elements the Examiner alleges.
These blog posts from 2008 say that the MPEP used to include an "all elements test" that has since been removed. The MPEP has been amended to say "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”
The author argues that the test still exists based on some case law, but of course this is just his opinion and the Examiners don't usually go very far off the MPEP reservation. The thrust of the author's argument is that the "all elements test" is implicit in the law.
Does this test still exist? How do folks frame this argument in their responses?