Appeal 2007-0008
Application 09/818,023
area that is not reinforced (the thinner material). The subject matter of
claims 1-4 therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of Appellant’s invention.
Claims 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Campbell in view of Appellant’s admission (Specification
36:24-26), Seufert ‘916, and Seufert ‘206.
As evidenced by Seufert ‘206, the US equivalent of the German
application (“DE-PS No. 25 41 324”) mentioned by Seufert ‘916 (Finding of
Fact 7), one of the well known techniques identified by Seufert ‘916
available for forming a bend line having a wider section, a narrower section,
and a transition zone of gradually increasing width between the wider
section and narrower section involves the use of a rule-shaped tool 20 (a
scoring rule). To utilize a multi-point rule having a narrower section to form
the narrower section of the bend line and a wider section to form the wider
section of the bend line would require merely a predictable variation of the
simple single point rule-shaped tool 20 taught by Seufert ‘206 well within
the skill of the art and thus would have been obvious. Campbell nominally
refers to scoring rolls (Finding of Fact 1) and Seufert ‘206 illustrates an
embodiment wherein the rule-shaped tool 20 is carried in a holding plate
connected to a work cylinder (Finding of Fact 7). A scoring rule formed as
part of a platen or press-type device, as embodied in Seufert ‘206, and a
scoring rule formed as part of a rotary scoring roll, as embodied in
Campbell, are both predictable variations of scoring devices and the use of
either to form the score lines in Campbell would have been obvious.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013