Appeal No. 2006-1411
Application No. 10/013,875
all referred to in Hansen et al. is relevant to a discussion of
what is disclosed by Hansen et al." (page 13 of Answer, second
paragraph). As noted by the examiner, the teachings of Brock
referenced by appellant are not present in Hansen. Moreover,
even if, for the sake of argument, Hansen utilized the same
engraved pattern of Brock, this does not undermine the
obviousness of using the engraved patterns disclosed by Cumbers.
Regarding appellant's argument that Cumbers teaches away
from exceeding 20 percent bond areas, we agree with the examiner
that Cumbers' disclosure of bond areas "from about 1% to 20% of
the total area" (column 3, lines 38 and 39), would have rendered
obvious the claimed "at least about 24 percent of bond areas."
It is well settled that the term "about" permits some variance.
Also, notwithstanding the issue of whether about 20 percent
would have suggested about 24 percent, we concur with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to select the area for bonding contingent upon
the amount of stiffness desired or permitted in the final
article. There is apparently no dispute that the relationship
between the amount of bonding and stiffness was known in the art
at the time of filing the present application.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007