Appeal No. 1999-2809
Application No. 08/155,946
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
55-58, 60-88, 99, 101-103, 105 and 106 as being unpatentable over
Blodee in view of Kennedy and Rosling, the examiner asserts that
"[i]t would have been obvious to have provided the strengthening
element of [Kennedy] in the hollow lateral walls shown in figure
25 of Blodee because doing so would have provided the advantage
of stronger walls" and that
[i]t further would have been obvious to have provided
the strengthening elements of a size and to fill a
proportion of the hollow wall of Blodee as taught by
[Rosling] because doing so would have reduced the
amount of material used in strengthening while still
providing additional strength to Blodee's walls
(answer, page 8).
Appellants urge that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not
be motivated to add [Rosling's] braces 6 and 7 or [Kennedy's ]
honeycomb material 8 to [Blodee's] vertical support assembly 131"
(brief, page 19). Again, we must agree with appellants that
there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in Blodee, Kennedy
or Rosling for making the combination asserted by the examiner.
Like appellants, it is our view that the examiner is again using
the hindsight benefit of appellants' own disclosure to combine
the honeycomb material of the weatherproof door of Kennedy with
the cabinet walls of Blodee, and further, to modify the honeycomb
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007