Appeal No. 2005-0655
Application No. 09/896,505
teaching of the bending and shear resistance advantages afforded
by hollow flanges which have their free edge margins juxtaposed
and attached to the components from which the flanges extend
would have furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or
motivation to provide Dolati’s flanges 31 and 32 with margins
juxtaposed (and attached) to their respective legs 26 and 27 to
supplement the stiffening characteristics desired by Dolati. As
so modified in view of Seccombe, the Dolati metallic structural
member would respond fully to the limitations in independent
claim 1, as well as to the limitations in dependent claims 2, 6,
8, 10 and 11. Hence, the combined teachings of these references
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in these claims and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10 and 11 as being
unpatentable over Dolati in view of Seccombe.
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3 through 5, 7 and 9 as
being unpatentable over Dolati in view of Seccombe.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007