Appeal No. 1999-2809
Application No. 08/155,946
for making the combination asserted by the examiner. Like
appellants, it is our view that the examiner is using the
hindsight benefit of appellants' own disclosure to combine the
strengthening elements of Rosling's door with the cabinet wall
panels of Blodee, and further, to modify the added strengthening
elements to have a honeycomb structure like that taught by
Wilkins. We note that in Wilkins, the honeycomb matrix
apparently fills the entire cavity in the container walls and we
do not consider that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated by the applied references, absent hindsight, to
provide separate strengthening elements having a honeycomb
matrix, and to include a "volume of space" (e.g., claim 1, lines
19 and 20) therebetween as in appellants' claimed cabinet. We
note that independent claim 14 defines the same cabinet structure
as in claim 1 in slightly different terms.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, 18-21, 23-25, 89, 90, 92-95, 97 and 98
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blodee and
Rosling in further view of Wilkins.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007