Appeal No. 1997-4430 Application 08/421,463 art alone, would have provided the essential motivation to configure the distinguishable single article taught by Laurent with the particular shape taken from the tubular fabric 2 of Hyodo. At this point, we particularly note that, even if so modified, the resulting pipe would not be that as claimed since adoption of the shape of the folded tubular fabric 2 of Hyodo with its turnover 8 (Fig. 1) would not effect a configuration of legs nested “to minimize the overall thickness of the folded pipe” (as seen in appellant’s Fig. 8), an express requirement of each of claims 39 and 65. Thus, the claimed invention would not have been rendered obvious on the basis of the Laurent and Hyodo disclosures. As to the Harper patent, it is apparent to us that it clearly fails to overcome the noted deficiencies of Laurent and Hyodo. In summary, this panel of the board has: reversed the rejection of claims 39 through 41 and 60 through 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Laurent; 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007