Appeal No. 2004–0182 Page 4
Application No. 09/933,354
must stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or
from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from
the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
The common applicable definition of “tubular” is “having the form of or consisting
of a tube,” and a “tube” is “a hollow elongated cylinder.”1 It is quite clear from Figure 20
that the Lickliter structural element does not fall within these definitions, for it comprises
an elongated hollow body configured in cross-section as an inverted “T” formed of three
essentially rectangularly-shaped sections which are connected together at their bases.
From our perspective, neither the entire structural element nor any of the three sections
constitutes a “tubular shape,” that is, a hollow elongated cylinder. Thus, we cannot
agree with the examiner that “the T-shaped section 22 is clearly a tube”
(Answer, page 6; emphasis added). This deficiency is not cured by further consideration
of Sturrus, which discloses a pair of joined hollow elements of rectangular cross-
section, or Lawson, which is directed to a flat strip.
It therefore is our view that the combined teachings of the references fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to any of independent claims 1,
18, 19 and 20, and we will not sustain the three rejections.
CONCLUSION
1Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 1270.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007