Appeal No. 1999-2809
Application No. 08/155,946
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
3-12, 14-16, 18-21, 23-25, 89, 90, 92-95, 97 and 98 as being
unpatentable over Blodee and Rosling in further view of Wilkins,
the examiner asserts that "[i]t would have been obvious to have
provided strengthening elements as taught by [Rosling] in the
walls of Blodee because doing so provides the known advantage of
stronger walls" (answer page 5) and that it "would have been
obvious to have provided spaced apart strengthening elements as
taught by [Rosling] of paper honeycomb material as taught by
Wilkins in column 1, lines 46-50 because doing so would have
provided the advantage of a lighter weight yet strong wall while
reducing the amount of material needed to strengthen the wall and
avoid costs of more expensive strengthening elements" (answer
page 6). Appellants urge that "Wilkins does not provide any
suggestion that one of ordinary skill would look to the wooden
door structure of [Rosling] to alter the structure of [Blodee's]
metal vertical support assembly 131" (brief, page 14) and that
"one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Wilkins to
replace [Rosling's] braces 6 with a honeycomb material." After
consideration of the collective teachings of the applied
references, we must agree with appellants that there is no
teaching, suggestion or motivation in Blodee, Rosling or Wilkins
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007