Appeal No. 2006-1834
Application No. 09/852,253
the Answer. In our view, Petek’s disclosed invention is directed to an improvement over
a single solid layer instrument sound board through the use of a laminated sound board
having multiple layers made of at least two different materials. (Petek, column 1, lines
7-13). While Petek’s preferred implementation of such a laminated sound board may be a
three layer construction, we do not find in Petek any support for Appellant’s conclusion that
such a three layer board is required or any disclosure which may be said to “teach away”
from a two layer sound board. Each reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what
it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. It is improper to downgrade a
reference on the basis that it teaches away, unless it teaches away in the context of the
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
We recognize that, at pages 1 and 2 of the Reply Brief, Appellant has amplified his
arguments against the Examiner’s obviousness rejection by asserting that the paragraph
of Sloane relied upon by the Examiner for teaching a two layer sound board actually is
directed to the construction of the backs and sides of guitars, not the sound board. We do
not find this persuasive. While Appellant is correct that the cited paragraph of Sloane in
question does state that “[r]osewood-veneered plywood is also available for backs and
sides,” the immediately succeeding sentence states that plywood is also used for the tops
of guitars which would include the sound board.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007