Appeal No. 2000-1469
Application 08/808,789
substantially constant sum of the maximum curvature Dmax and
the minimum curvature Dmin at all points on a surface of the
intermediate portion 21" (column 3, lines 28 through 32).
In proposing to combine Haraga and Mori to reject claims
20 and 21, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious “to utilize two-dimensional and three-dimensional
curvatures as taught by Mori et al. on the panel of Haraga et
al. because the curvatures would enhance the stiffness of the
panel” (final rejection, page 3).
As persuasively argued by the appellants, however, there
is nothing in the combined teachings of Haraga and Mori which
would have suggested this particular modification. To begin
with, neither reference gives any indication that the Haraga
panel is in need of additional stiffening. Moreover, the flat
or planar configuration of the Haraga panel is entirely
consistent with its intended use in the wall or door of an
elevator, while the two-dimensional or three-dimensional
curvature proposed by the examiner would seem to be at odds
with such use. The mere fact that prior art could be modified
in the manner proposed by an examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art would have suggested
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007