Appeal No. 2001-0888 Page 7
Application No. 08/790,559
operation would have been so changed as to militate against an obviousness
conclusion. This is because the modified method of VonVolkli would have remained
unchanged in all respects except for the use of pressurized fluid to assist in
disengaging the support fixture and boot. We do not perceive and the appellant does
not explain why this one modification would alter VonVolkli's principle of operation to
such an extent that the modification would not have been obvious to an artisan with
ordinary skill.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we will sustain the examiner's
§ 103 rejection of claims 38, 39, and 41-44 as being unpatentable over VonVolkli in
view of Lin.
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claims 33-36 and 59, we additionally share the
examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide the pressurized fluid
system of Darrieux with the capability of applying a vacuum of the type and for the
reasons taught by VonVolkli. This provision would have been motivated by the desire
to combine the benefits of Darrieux's pressurized fluid system with the benefits of
VonVolkli's vacuum system. In support of his contrary view, the appellant argues that,
"[s]ince bladder 12 in Darrieux is not sealed until after the layup of fibers has occurred,
Applicant submits that a vacuum as taught by Von Volkli (i.e., a vacuum used during
the layup procedure) would be useless as applied to Darrieux because no seal is
present in Darrieux that would prevent air from continuing to be drawn through the
openings in bar 6" (Brief, page 41).
This argument is unpersuasive because it is implicitly premised upon an
incorrect test for obviousness. The test for obviousness is not, as the appellant seems
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007