Appeal No. 2004-0753
Application No. 10/120,096
In proposing to combine Higham and Yurgevich to reject claim
37, the examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide in Higham apertures
in the logistics plate member [i.e., interior extrusion 13 or cap
member 14] as taught by Yurgevich et al. in order to secure
cargo” (final rejection, pages 2 and 3). As so modified in view
of Yurgevich, the Higham panel/module joint would respond to all
of the limitations in the claim.
The appellant counters that the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is unsound because it stems from impermissible
hindsight. The following passage fairly summarizes the
appellant’s position:
If the cap member (14) [or extrusion (13)] of
Higham ‘258 were to have a plurality of apertures
therethrough for the acceptance of an associated
member, the superior insulation that is coveted by
Higham ‘258 would be lost as the refrigeration would be
able to leak through the apertures, into the joint,
thus leaving only the [exterior] T-shaped extrusion
(13) between the refrigeration and the outside of the
vehicle body. Such as structure would be
counterproductive to the problem that Higham ‘258 was
trying to solve, i.e., providing an improved method of
constructing insulated vehicle bodies.
. . .
Moreover, if the apertures of Yurgevich ‘099 were
added to Higham ‘258's connecting members, Higham ‘258
would be inoperable as Higham ‘258 specifically
discloses connecting members that have extra material
extending into the open space [between the modules].
If the apertures of Yurgevich ‘099 were added, Higham
‘258 would not be able to have the extra material
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007