Appeal No. 2003-0220 Page 6
Application No. 09/478,871
The examiner has explained the rejection in the following manner on page 4 of
the Answer:
From this [six-sided] teaching [of Wessels], forming the face
and rear panels of lino et al. with a polygonal shape, rather
than a circular shape, would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in
order to minimize waste during manufacturing.
Moreover, forming the polygonal shape with twelve sides,
such that each side has a specific length, represents a
change in shape that would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. This change in shape would apply a
well known concept in a way that optimizes the use of space
on the sheet of material used in manufacturing, while
maintaining a generally circular shape in the panel
(emphasis added).
The examiner further states in response to the appellant’s argument (Answer, page 5):
Since a circle is conceptually understood to be a polygon
with an infinite number of sides, this problem can be more
particularly stated as whether or not providing the panels
with a specific number of sides is patentably distinguishing
over the prior art (emphasis added).
The fact of the matter is that the appellant’s claim 1 specifies that the face and
rear panels each have the shape of a twelve-sided polygon, and the specification
explains that this provides several advantages other than merely providing less waste
than utilizing panels that are circular. While Wessels recognizes that there are more
efficient shapes than circles for reasons of saving waste and improving the forming
operation, Wessels does not disclose or teach that a twelve-sided polygon is useful for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007