Appeal No. 2004-0753
Application No. 10/120,096
would adversely affect its insulating properties to any
appreciable extent. Furthermore, the appellant has not cogently
explained, and it is not apparent, why the provision of such
apertures would require the elimination of the joining member
portions which extend between and space the panels/modules. On
balance, the unfounded and/or minimal drawbacks argued by the
appellant pale in the light of the strong motivation or
suggestion to modify Higham in the manner proposed stemming from
the express teaching by Yurgevich of the desirability of
logistics apertures.
Thus, on the record before us, the combined teachings of
Higham and Yurgevich justify the examiner’s conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claim 37 and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. We shall therefore sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 37, and claims 38
through 41, 43 through 50 and 52 which stand or fall therewith,
as being unpatentable over Higham in view of Yurgevich.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007