Appeal 2007-2198
Application 10/324,181
§ 103(a) Rejection over Turi and Shimalla
Appellants do not dispute that Turi teaches or suggests a forming
apparatus including a forming surface with projections corresponding to the
representative appealed claim 1 apparatus but for the argued high aspect
ratio of one or greater and a columnar form of the claimed forming apparatus
projections (Answer 7). In this regard, the Examiner notes that Turi
discloses a pyramidal shaped forming apparatus projection without
specifying any height limitation of the projection (Answer 11; Turi, figs. 23
and 24, element 121 and example 3). Based on the above and a disclosed
ridge shaped projection height disclosed by Shimalla, the Examiner
maintains that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have constructed the forming apparatus projections of Turi
in a high aspect ratio columnar (needle) form, a projection form within the
required aspect ratio and shape required by representative claim 1. We
agree.
Appellants note that the ridge form of projection of Shimalla is not the
same as the projections of the forming apparatus (figs. 23 and 24) of Turi
and that Turi’s pyramid shape projections are not of a generally columnar
form as required for the projections of representative claim 1 (Br. 11 and
12). Because of these two argued distinctions, Appellants maintain that the
rejection lacks the requisite showing of a suggestion and/or or a reasonable
expectation of success for the proposed modification of the projections of
Turi (Br. 11-13).
We are not persuaded of any reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection by this argument. In this regard, it is not necessary that suggestion
or motivation be found within the four corners of the references themselves;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013