Appeal 2007-1934
Application 09/993,443
1 process (FF 18). By aligning the axes of the drill and pin press as described
2 in Lewis, the work or stack of boards need not be urged forward to a second
3 position as in Anguera ‘191. In other words, the stack of boards stays in the
4 same location, which would be beneficial for the reasons given by the
5 Examiner. The Applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary.
6 The Anguera ‘395 or Larsen reference were relied on for the cross
7 sectional dimensions of the boards. One of ordinary skill in the art would
8 have known how to use the Anguera ‘191 and Lewis machines on any stack
9 of boards, regardless of their specific dimensions. Again, the Applicant has
10 failed to demonstrate that the Examiner’s findings with respect to Larsen or
11 Anguera ‘395 are erroneous.
12 With respect to claim 14, the Examiner found that Anglehart describes
13 arranging side by side boards with opposing wood grain for the purpose of
14 strengthening and preventing warping. Applicant’s attack on the Anglehart
15 reference as solving a different problem than the one Applicant is solving is
16 not persuasive, especially in light of KSR. (“In determining whether the
17 subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation
18 nor the avowed purpose of the patentee [here the applicants] controls. What
19 matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is
20 obvious, it is invalid under § 103”). KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741-43, 82
21 USPQ2d at 1397. The benefit described in Anglehart of alternating the
22 grains of wood need not be the same benefit realized by Applicant.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013