Appeal No. 2005-0994 Page 8
Application No. 09/432,485
representative of a desired portion of a vehicle and a paint spray gun simulation as
recited in claims 1 to 6.
The combined teachings of the Kinema/SIM Manual and Miller are suggestive of
utilizing the interactive software tool taught by the Kinema/SIM Manual to predict paint
particle trajectories from a bell sprayer as taught by Miller. The combined teachings of
the Kinema/SIM Manual and Miller are not suggestive of a system or method for
designing a vehicle which utilizes both a computer aided design (CAD) model
representative of a desired portion of a vehicle and a paint spray gun simulation as
recited in claims 1 to 6.4
4While a rejection of claims 1 to 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of the Kinema/SIM Manual, Strumolo and Miller is not before us in this
appeal, we nevertheless wish to point out that the combined teachings of the
Kinema/SIM Manual, Strumolo and Miller are likewise not suggestive of a system or
method for designing a vehicle which utilizes both a computer aided design (CAD)
model representative of a desired portion of a vehicle and a paint spray gun simulation
as recited in claims 1 to 6. The combined teachings of the Kinema/SIM Manual,
Strumolo and Miller are suggestive of utilizing the interactive software tool taught by the
Kinema/SIM Manual to both predict sound pressure levels within a vehicle as taught by
Strumolo and to predict paint particle trajectories from a bell sprayer as taught by Miller.
The mere fact that the prior art could be modified in a manner to arrive at the claimed
subject matter does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. See In re Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007