Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
addressed need not be the same as those addressed by Appellant. See In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("As
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." (citing In re
Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ 425, 427-28 (C.C.P.A. 1976)).
The Examiner makes a finding of a reason, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the teachings and Appellant does not directly dispute this finding.
Furthermore, the reason to combine the teachings flows from the disclosures
of the references. The Wallick references disclose an embodiment in which
the resin solution is only applied to the tips of the flutes, i.e., the crests of the
web (Wallick ‘391, col. 5, ll. 30-32) and further discloses using a sprayer to
apply the resin, albeit it is unclear whether Wallick intends the sprayer to
apply the coating only to the tips. The Westphal and Miller references
provide evidence that sprayers were known that could apply liquid material
to only the crests or tips of flutes of a corrugated material. It follows that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known
prior art sprayers to accomplish what Wallick desires, i.e., to coat only the
crests or tips.
We conclude that the Examiner has established prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 35 that has not been sufficiently rebutted
by Appellant.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007