Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 13
that the combined teachings of Jordan and Sobel would have
reasonably suggested that one of ordinary skill in the art use an
accordion pleat in constructing the enclosure of Jordan as taught
by Sobel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
to make such a modification of Jordan’s device with the
reasonable expectation that the resiliency of the flexible
enclosure of Jordan’s crash protection device would have been
increased resulting in an improved impact device.
Appellant argues that claim 22 requires that the pleat
structure has the capability of accommodating percussive
expansion whereas the accordion like structure of Sobel is
constructed to collapse. While Sobel (column 4, lines 12-14)
does describe a preferred embodiment wherein the grooves or
pleats of the shell enclosure are constructed to permit collapse
of the shell during a collision, that disclosure of Sobel does
not teach that the pleat structure portion of the shell is not
capable of accommodating percussive expansion as appellant
claims. Indeed, as discussed above and explained by Sobel, the
pleats increase resiliency of the flexible shell enclosure. That
disclosure reasonably suggests that the pleat portion of the
shell could expand or contract depending on the forces applied
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007