Appeal No. 2002-2084 Page 8
Application No. 09/016,740
The obviousness rejections
In all of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal, the
examiner (1) ascertained that Van Valkenburgh did not disclose the claimed bores (i.e,
the first and second bore holes in the first side wall portion, the third and fourth bore
holes in the second side wall portion and the fifth and sixth bore holes in the central wall
portion); (2) determined that Loeber teaches using linearly aligned lightening bores in
side wall portions in order to reduce the weight of a frame; and (3) concluded that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the claimed
invention was made, to have included Loeber's linearly aligned lightening bores on Van
Valkenburgh's frame in order to reduce its weight.
The appellants' argument
The appellants argue (brief, p. 15) that the examiner utilized impermissible
hindsight in combining the teachings of Van Valkenburgh and Loeber to render the
claimed subject matter obvious.
Our determination
In our view, there is no suggestion in the teachings of Van Valkenburgh and
Loeber to arrive at the claimed subject matter. We have also reviewed the references
to Powell and Ahonen but find nothing therein which would have made the subject
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007