Appeal No.97-2716
Application 08/261,772
satisfy this limitation, it appears that the examiner considers
that it would have been obvious to make the traffic marker or
indicator of Adams of an open weave material in view of the
teachings of Latimer and to further make the open weave material
of a fiberglass mesh web in view of the teachings of Hadzicki.
However, for the reasons stated above with respect to Rejections
(1) and (3) through (8), we do not believe that it would have
been obvious to make the traffic marker or indicator of Adams of
an open weave material in view of the teachings of Latimer. With
respect to Hadzicki, the answer states that this reference “is
relied upon only for the teaching that it is known to make mesh
material from fiberglass” (see page 10). However, the mere fact
that, generally speaking, that fiberglass mesh is a “known”
material does not serve as a sufficient basis for concluding that
it would have been obvious to utilize fiberglass mesh in the
traffic marker or indicator of Adams, as modified by Latimer.
Instead, it is well settled that it is the prior art which must
provide one of ordinary skill in the art the motivation to make
the proposed modifications needed to arrive at the claimed
invention. See, e.g., In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the fiberglass mesh of Hadzicki is
obviously a light weight material (see column 3, lines 20-27)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007