Appeal 2006-2253
Application 10/464,595
ANALYSIS
Dhont does not include any suggestion to make the carrying case fire
resistant. Robbins does not disclose that the materials utilized to form the
fire resistant safe can be used to form a carrying case. In fact, as the
insulation in Robbins in comprised at least in part of concrete, it would
appear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
include the insulation in the carrying case because such inclusion would
increase the weight and thus reduce the portability of the case. We must
conclude that the only suggestion for combining such disparate structures in
the manner proposed by the Examiner stems from an impermissible
hindsight reconstruction of the Appellant's invention wherein the claims
have been used as a template to selectively piece together isolated
disclosures in the prior art.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain either of the Examiner’s
rejections of the appealed claims because both rejections rely on the
combination of Dhont/Robbins and we find no motivation or suggestion to
make the combination.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013