Appeal No. 2004-0194
Application No. 09/571,606
formerly been formed in two pieces and put together
involves only routine skill in the art.
(Page 4 of Answer, last paragraph). Hence, it can be seen that
the examiner's rejection requires not only modifying Mukai, the
primary reference, in view of Kubota's disclosure, but also
requires the modification of Kubota itself. In any event, it is
our opinion that while it may have been obvious, as a general
proposition, to form in one piece an article that was known to
exist in two pieces, there is simply no teaching or suggestion
from the combined teachings of Mukai and Kubota to form the
presently claimed grid-shaped expansion plate having a second
plurality of apertures that are circumferentially spaced from the
first plurality of apertures. Appellants' specification
describes a specific purpose for the second plurality of
apertures of the claimed expansion plate. The examiner has not
explained how forming one piece from the individual bands of
Kubota "clearly will indicate the expansion plate with a second
plurality of apertures spaced axially next to each other and
circumferentially spaced from the first plurality of apertures"
(page 5 of Answer, second paragraph). It seems to us that any
such indication proposed by the examiner emanates from an
impermissible use of hindsight based on appellants'
specification, not the teachings of the cited references.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007