Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
Under these circumstances, we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to provide
apertures in the formers of the upper mould part of the type
described in Perkins, with a reasonable expectation of
successfully obtaining the advantages indicated supra. In
reaching the above determination, we note that Perkins teaches
employing apertures in its upper mould part 3 near the formers 8.
However, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art,
recognizing an additional advantage that can be derived from
employing additional apertures in the formers as indicated supra,
would have been led to the subject matter recited in claim 47.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claim 44, we note that it embraces the
limitations of claim 1 since it is dependent thereon. As
indicated supra, Killingbeck and Perkins do not teach the claimed
“elongate members in array”. Smith does not remedy this
deficiency in Killingbeck and Perkins. Yet, the examiner has not
explained how and why the combined teachings of Killingbeck,
Perkins and Smith would have rendered the subject matter of claim
44 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we
are constrained to reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007