Appeal No. 98-1295
Application No. 08/325,361
capable of transmitting tensile loads between joined panels
under blast conditions.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
All five of these rejections pertain to claims that
ultimately depend from claim 1, and all utilize as the primary
reference either Veenema or Powell. Considering the
disclosures and teachings of these two references from the
standpoint of obviousness under Section 103, it is our view 2
that the problem with each reference discussed above still
exists. Even taking into account the teachings of Lee, Norton
and Kupersmit, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or
incentive which would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide the joint means of Veenema or Powell with such
modifications as would permit them to be relatively flexible
and capable of transmitting tensile loads between joined
panels under blast conditions. The only suggestion for doing
so is vested in the hindsight accorded one who first viewed
the appellants’ disclosure, and in that manner determining the
2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007