Appeal 2007-2198
Application 10/324,181
Examiner (Answer 8-10). As evidenced by the Examiner’s presentation, we
have no doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
proposed modification of the projection forming device of Curro based on
the combined teachings of the references. This modification represents an
obviously available technique for forming the desired high aspect ratio film
surface projections as an alternative to the spraying or printing methods
described by Ahr.
Just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness, expected
beneficial results are evidence of obviousness. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947,
950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975); In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1396,
187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975). Moreover, obviousness is determined,
not on whether one reference suggests combining its teachings with another
reference, but on what the combined teachings of the references would have
fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Napier, 55 F.3d
610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In our opinion, a person
of ordinary skill in the art, based on the combined teachings of the
references, would reasonably have expected that raising the height of the
surface aberrations (156, fig. 10) of the film projection forming structure of
Curro to furnish a higher aspect ratio columnar aberration, as claimed, would
have resulted in the predictable formation of the desired high aspect ratio
projections on a film formed therewith.
On this record, it follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 5-12 over Curro taken with Ahr,
Shimalla, and Turi.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013