Appeal No. 2004-1950
Application 09/352,612
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported positions advanced by the examiner in the answer that, prima
facie, the claimed grids encompassed by appealed claims 1, 4, 6 and 16 would have been obvious
over the combined teachings of Van Vliet and Kobiella and of Van Vliet, Kobiella and Foglia2 to
one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. Thus, we again
consider the record as a whole with respect to these grounds of rejection in light of appellants’
rebuttal arguments in the brief and reply brief. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The difference between the claimed grids and the grids disclosed by Van Vliet is
described by appellants as “Van Vliet fails to teach or suggest a zone of overlap in a grid with
two intersecting strips having at least two spatially separated bonding points or lines” (brief,
page 16). In this respect, appellants find that Van Vliet teaches that bonding occurs in the entire
region of overlap (id., pages 15-16; reply brief, page 2). Appellants submit, with respect to
appealed claims 15 and 16, that although Kobiella teaches spatially separated bonding, the
reference does not bridge the gap between the claimed invention and Van Vliet because it is
directed to a single strap that is subjected to tensile loads only in the longitudinal direction and
not in the longitudinal and transverse directions as in the claimed grids and those of Van Vliet,
and thus, the bonded strap of Kobiella does not have the problem of splitting in the transverse
direction under load which can rupture the strap, citing their specification at page 2, ll. 17-30 for
support (brief, page 17). Appellants allege that Kobiella discloses at col. 6, ll. 8-11, that the
bonding area of the single strap has “only 75% of the strength” of the strap, thus teaching away
from using the bonding of the reference in grids “to prevent early rupture,” citing their
specification at page 6, ll. 22-27, “where it is pointed out that the prior art bonding of the entire
2 A discussion of Romanek, Saito and Hoechst is unnecessary to our decision. See In re Jones,
958 F.2d 347, 349, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1942 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-
04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28 (CCPA 1976).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007