Appeal No. 2002-1214
Application No. 09/062,046
We select claim 40 as the representative claim for this rejection. The Examiner has
determined that Miller does not disclose plural upper members as required by
claim 40. To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner relies on Bielfeldt. The
Examiner concludes that the use of plural upper members would have been obvious
to provide flexibility to the press operation. (Answer, pp. 5 and 8). We agree. The
addition of press members to the apparatus of Miller would allow for the pressure to
vary in specific zones on the work element.
Appellants argue that Miller teaches or suggest nothing but an apparatus for a
printed circuit board and that Bielfeldt teaches or suggest nothing but a press for
particle board. (Brief, p. 16). It is well-settled that a prior art reference is relevant
for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Miller is not limited to
printed circuit boards. Miller discloses that the apparatus is suitable for use on work
elements and is not limited to laminated printed circuit boards. (Col. 1). Bielfeldt
teaches a press with various press zones for articles including particle boards, fiber
boards and plastic boards. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the addition of press members to the apparatus of Miller would
allow for the pressure to vary in specific zones on the work element.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007