Appeal No. 2001-0888 Page 6
Application No. 08/790,559
(e.g., see lines 15-21 in column 5), namely, assistance in detaching from the mandrel
body the inflatable bladder/boot and composite body of VonVolkli.
In support of his nonobviousness position, the appellant argues that "Von Volkli
states nothing about the need to take any further steps to reduce friction between the
boot and the support fixture [i.e., mandrel body]" and "[t]herefore, Applicant submits that
the vacuum drawn between the boot and mold assembly allows the boot and uncured
composite to be removed from the support fixture without the need for further
assistance" (Brief, page 22). The appellant then concludes "[t]hus there is no reason
to combine the teachings of the two references [i.e., VonVolkli and Lin]" (Brief, page
22). We cannot agree.
In our view, the cumulative teachings of the references under consideration
would have motivated the artisan to combine them in the manner proposed by the
examiner so as to ensure an effective removal of VonVolkli's boot/bladder from his
support fixture/mandrel body. Indeed, as indicated by the examiner on page 12 of the
Answer, the fact that VonVolkli applies powdered talc between his fixture and boot (e.g.,
see lines 34-37 in column 5) would have suggested the potential for difficulty in
assembling as well as disassembling these structures and therefore would have
suggested the desirability (and thus the obviousness) of providing VonVolkli's fluid
system with a pressurized fluid supply as taught by Lin in order to avoid such potential
difficulties.
The appellant also argues that the examiner's proposed combination of
VonVolkli and Lin would not have been obvious because it would have changed
VonVolkli's principle of operation. We do not agree that VonVolkli's principle of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007