Appeal No. 2000-1712
Application No. 08/624,091
and thickness of the shutter. Accordingly, it is not3
apparent to us how one having ordinary skill in the art would
have arrived at the particular dimensions recited in claim 17
in the absence of appellant's disclosure. Thus, the
examiner's determination that the particular film thickness
and crease spacings recited in appellant's claim 17 would have
been obvious appears to us to stem from a hindsight
reconstruction of appellant's device.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection.
3Appellant has explained on page 8 of the brief why a thin film having
the thickness recited in claim 17 would not operate in Trippner's arrangement
and thus would not have been considered suitable to one of ordinary skill in
the art without an appreciation of the benefits of creases in overcoming the
problems of thin films. The examiner has not responded with evidence that
such a solution would have been appreciated by one skilled in the art at the
time of appellant's invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007