Appeal No. 2004-1950
Application 09/352,612
zone of overlap (such as [the conventional prior art weld of Van Vliet in] Fig. 2 . . . ), [sic]
exhibits only a 15% loss in strength retention” (brief, page 17). Thus, appellants argue that
“since entire bonding, such as in Van Vliet, has improved strength from that taught to be
achievable by Kobiella, one would have been led against the combination” (id.). Appellants
contend with respect to appealed claim 4 that the references do not teach the specified width of
the bonding points or lines.
Appellants further submit that the references do not teach that “the grid has a strength
about equal to the higher tensile strength in the lengthwise direction of the strips” as specified in
appealed 16, alleging that appellants “have found that the strength of grids that are loaded in a
direction perpendicular to three or more spatially separated and parallel bonding lines can be
virtually equal to the sum of the strips strength in that direction,” citing page 3, lines 3-12, of
their specification (brief, page 18). Appellants contend that “Kobiella teaches an inferior
strength of its bonding and teaches against such spatial separation” (id., page 19). Appellants
further contend that a comparison of a grid of Van Vliet’s grid with a grid of the claimed
invention as set forth at specification, page 6, ll. 8-27, and shown in a table at brief, page 19,
would show that the grid of Van Vliet suffers a large strength loss of about 15% and “exhibits
the problem of early rupture,” which problem is solved by appellants in the grids of appealed
claims 1 and 16. (brief, page 19).
Appellants submit with respect to appealed claim 6 that Foglia does not teach the use of
lasers to form spatially separated bonding points or lines (id., page 20).
The examiner responds that appellants’ arguments with respect to strap rupture are
unsupported by evidence, and appellants’ use of spatially separated bonding to address strap
rupture is only a different reason to use such bonding than that of improving tensile strength
taught by Kobiella (answer, page 12). The examiner further points out that “Kobiella discloses
at least 75% (strap strength)” which reads on “75% and higher, with no upper limit provided,”
and finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have readily expected from Kobiella’s
general teaching as provided in Col. 2, lines 21-46, the strength across a zone of overlap would
increase from its original strength by employing spatially separated bonding lines as such
maintains orientation within the strips at the zone of overlap” (id., pages 12-13). The examiner
further finds that “[t]he exact extent of the strip strength in the welding zone would have been
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007