Appeal No. 2005-0994 Page 7
Application No. 09/432,485
claim 5; (10) the first storing step of claim 6; (11) the first displaying step of claim 6; (12)
the placing step of claim 6; (13) the second storing step of claim 6; (14) the computing
step of claim 6; (15) the second displaying step of claim 6; and (16) the repositioning
step of claim 6.
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined (answer, p. 10) that
"[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to model paint droplet flow past an automobile because this would result in
cost reductions as the paint would be applied more efficiently."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 23-39) that a prima facie case of obviousness
has not been presented since that examiner has failed to present evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. We agree.
The combined teachings of the Kinema/SIM Manual and Strumolo are suggestive
of utilizing the interactive software tool taught by the Kinema/SIM Manual to predict
sound pressure levels within a vehicle as taught by Strumolo. The combined teachings
of the Kinema/SIM Manual and Strumolo are not suggestive of a system or method for
designing a vehicle which utilizes both a computer aided design (CAD) model
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007