Appeal No. 1996-1598 Page 6
Application No. 08/206,743
The appellants argue (reply brief, pp. 1-3 and substitute
brief, pp. 8-13) that the above-noted height limitation is not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art (i.e., Lazzaro,
Goodrich, Miyate and Scholtze). We agree. In fact, the
examiner never concluded that the above-noted height
limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made. Moreover, in
applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we conclude
that the above-noted height limitation would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made. In that regard, while we agree with the
examiner's determinations (answer, p. 3) that Goodrich would
have suggested a rectangular starter bar and that Miyate would
have suggested a tapered raised portion to prevent the
development of cracks, it is our opinion that in applying the
teachings of Miyate to prevent the development of cracks, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have also incorporated his
teachings as to the relative height of the raised portion
relative to the peripheral wall. Miyate teaches that to
prevent cracks a tapered projection is provided which extends
from 0-15 mm above the top surface of the peripheral wall.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007