Appeal 2006-1312
Application 09/955,604
and 22 a production tool which is a flat sheet having adjacent pairs of
cavities that have different geometric shapes and dimensions. Rochlis would
have taught that such a production tool can also be “arcuate so as to produce
a cylindrical or drum-like mold.” The geometrically different cavities are in
non-random, uniform and consistent arrays as illustrated, wherein the
cavities 140 and 142 have different angles of intersection and can be
adjacent when the sections shown in Fig. 21 are aligned next to each other.
Rochlis, col. 13, ll. 6-61. As pointed out by the Examiner, “Rochlis does
teach pyramids (Fig 13A) and truncated pyramids (Fig. 12)” (Answer 10).
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions based on the combined teachings
of teachings of Pieper and Rochlis, we find substantial evidence in such
teachings supporting the Examiner’s position. Indeed, we fail to find any
basis in Pieper which establishes that one of ordinary skill in this art would
have reasonably interpreted the plural instances of the teaching that the
cavity arrayed in the tool can have “at least one . . . shape” to mean that the
cavities can have only one geometric shape instead of the literal meaning in
context that more than one shape can be employed in the cavity arrays.
We are not convinced otherwise by Appellants’ argument that the
teachings and objectives of consistent and uniform arrays of cavities taught
by Pieper exclude geometrically different cavities. This is because one of
ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably found in the teachings of
Pieper the direction that the use of more than one geometric cavity in the
array will achieve the stated objectives as long as pattern of the different
geometric cavities is non-random, consistent and uniform. In this respect, it
is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007