Appeal No. 1999-2809
Application No. 08/155,946
material of that reinforcement to fill only part of the hollow
wall of Blodee. We note that in Kennedy, like Wilkins, the
honeycomb matrix apparently fills the entire cavity between the
door panels and we do not consider that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated by the applied references,
absent hindsight, to provide a wall having a volume of space,
wherein the "volume of space is greater than the combined volume
of said strengthening element and said apertures" as recited in
claims 55 and 70 on appeal.
Moreover, we note that claim 55 recites walls each having a
plurality of edges, "a cavity having a boundary defined by said
plurality of edges" (line 9, emphasis added), "a strengthening
element" (line 11), and that "a volume of space exclusive of said
strengthening element and said apertures, is defined, where the
cavity consists essentially of said volume of space, said
strengthening element and said apertures" (lines 17-19). We do
not find this teaching in the references applied and note that
Rosling discloses multiple strengthening elements and, thus, does
not teach a cavity that "consists essentially of" said volume of
space, a strengthening element and said apertures, as recited in
claim 55 on appeal.
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007