Appeal No. 2004-1950
Application 09/352,612
of the strip, thus permitting the overlapping strap portion to retain substantially all of its original
strength, thus providing the motivation to use such bonding or welding pattern in place of
bonding or welding the entire zone of overlap in the mat or grid of Van Vliet.
We recognize that Kobiella does not address the problem of splitting of strips in the
transverse direction under load as do appellants. However, Kobiella identifies a problem with
single strip overlap bonding or welding of the entire overlap area shown by Van Vliet for double
strip overlap bonding or welding, and thus one of ordinary skill in this art would have been
directed to the solution disclosed by Kobiella which permits retaining strip strength in the
longitudinal direction that is of importance to Van Vliet. Thus, as the examiner argues, “[a]s
long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art
taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventor. [Citations omitted.]” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312,
24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990)(in banc). In any event, one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized from Van
Vliet that the strength of the strip in the transverse direction can be addressed by the type and
drawing of the polymeric material, and as pointed out by the examiner, there are a number of
additional variables that also influence strip and grid strength.
We are not convinced by appellants’ arguments that Kobiella teaches inferior bonding
strength which results in “only 75% of the strength of the strap” compared to only a 15% loss in
strength that appellants find in Van Vliet (brief, pages 17 and 19). Indeed, appellants’ arguments
in these respects are unsupported on the record as clear from the dissimilar materials and
dimensions reported in the table at page 19 of the brief, and the disclosure of the example at
col. 6, ll. 8 et seq., of Kobiella has not been established as being representative of the teachings
of the reference as a whole. In this latter respect, the examiner correctly points out that said
disclosure in Kobiella reads “at least about 75 percent of the strap strength” which, when
compared with the disclosure “the overlapping strap portions retain substantially all of their
original strength,” would define a range with 100 % retention as the upper limit. Thus,
appellants’ arguments do not establish that the “strength” limitation of appealed claim 16 is not
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007