Appeal No. 2004-1165 Page 6
Application No. 09/163,042
order to have a cushioning means for the object being protected, as suggested by
Snyder at page 2, lines 31-40" (final rejection, pages 5 and 8). We agree with
appellant’s argument on pages 21-22 of the brief that such a modification of George
would undermine the second purpose of the adhesive 28 of rigidifying and reinforcing
the apexes 25 by providing a rigid determination of the angle of juncture between each
planar wall 24 and the adjacent facing sheet 26 or 27 and thus serving to further define
and reinforce the included angle between the planar walls 24 of any given flute, as
taught by George. We share appellant’s view that one skilled in the art would have
recognized that tissue paper “simply lacks the structural integrity to cooperate with the
corrugated material” to provide a rigid determination of the angle of junction between
each planar wall and the adjacent facing sheet 26 or 27, one of the objectives of
George’s invention. Where the proposed modification would render the prior art
invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed
modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan
Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360, 52 USPQ2d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Finding no suggestion to
modify George to make the facing sheet or sheets of tissue paper, it follows that we
cannot sustain any of the examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007