Appeal No. 2000-0534 Page 6
Application No. 08/929,543
angle therebetween other than 0 degrees and other than 180
degrees so that the two sections are nonlinearly disposed.
However, these limitations are not suggested by the applied
prior art. In that regard, while Epply does teach in Figures
12-18 two sections of one net that intersect substantially
vertically along the net to form an angle therebetween other
than 0 degrees and other than 180 degrees so that the two
sections are nonlinearly disposed, Epply does not teach or
suggest that the vertical intersection of the two sections of
the one net extend between the top edge and the bottom edge of
the net. To supply this omission in the teachings of Epply,
the examiner made a determination (final rejection, page 2)
that this difference would have been obvious to an artisan
from either Tomczak or Steen. We do not agree. In that
regard, it is our opinion that Tomczak's teaching of two nets
that intersect substantially vertically between their top
edges and bottom edges to form an angle therebetween other
than 0 degrees and other than 180 degrees so that the two nets
are nonlinearly disposed would not have provided any
motivation that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention. Furthermore, it is our belief that,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007