Appeal No. 2007-0484 3
Issues
Dow identifies the following issues for decision on appeal:4
1(a): Whether either Walendy or Ducharme teaches or suggests a slit
that penetrates to a depth less than a panel thickness that traverses and
severs a primary face of the panel.
1(b): Whether either Walendy or Ducharme teaches or suggests a slit
that facilitates bending of a building panel into a non-planar
configuration.
2: Whether either Walendy or Ducharme teaches or suggests a
panel comprising at least two panel domains, wherein the panel
domains extend through the thickness of the panel.
We are mindful of our obligation to consider both the prior art and each
claim as a whole, but for the sake of clarity we focus our analysis on the appealed
issues and corresponding contested claim limitations.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness is a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. The scope and content of
the prior art must be determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject matter
(so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such secondary
considerations guard against the employment of impermissible hindsight.5
Scope and content of the prior art
Dow contests two limitations: the slit (claims 1 and 22) and the domain
thickness (claim 22). The examiner relies on Ducharme for evidence of slits in the
4 AB at 3.
5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966). The record on appeal does
not contain objective evidence of secondary considerations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013