Appeal No. 96-2247 Page 9
Application No. 08/218,488
shroud (1) include intersecting sets of fiberglass elements, or
(2) have a "porosity" (i.e., open area) greater than 40%.
Our review of Tallman and Every reveals that the teachings
therein would not have rendered the above-identified limitations
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time
of the appellants' invention. In that regard, we see no teaching
in Tallman and/or Every that would have suggested modifying Wilde
to include a shroud having intersecting sets of fiberglass
elements as set forth in claim 1. Contrary to the examiner's
assertions, we find no teaching in the applied prior art that
would have suggested a shroud having intersecting sets of
fiberglass elements. While fiberglass may be known for its high
strength, we see no motivation in the applied prior art, of why
one skilled in the art would have modified the device of Wilde to
include a shroud comprising two essentially perpendicular
intersecting sets of fiberglass elements. Furthermore, the
examiner has not set forth an effective line of reasoning of why
a shroud having a "porosity" (i.e., open area) greater than 40%
would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007