Appeal No. 1997-4430
Application 08/421,463
art alone, would have provided the essential motivation to
configure the distinguishable single article taught by Laurent
with the particular shape taken from the tubular fabric 2 of
Hyodo. At this point, we particularly note that, even if so
modified, the resulting pipe would not be that as claimed
since adoption of the shape of the folded tubular fabric 2 of
Hyodo with its turnover 8 (Fig. 1) would not effect a
configuration of legs nested “to minimize the overall
thickness of the folded pipe” (as seen in appellant’s Fig. 8),
an express requirement of each of claims 39 and 65. Thus, the
claimed invention would not have been rendered obvious on the
basis of the Laurent and Hyodo disclosures. As to the Harper
patent, it is apparent to us that it clearly fails to overcome
the noted deficiencies of Laurent and Hyodo.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 39 through 41 and 60
through 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Laurent;
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007