Appeal No. 2006-1834
Application No. 09/852,253
with the claimed “cedar/spruce’ and “redwood/spruce” combinations being described by
Appellant’s specification (page 7, line 1) as “combinations of interest.”
We next consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, based on the
combination of Petek, Sloane, and Oehrlein, of dependent claims 22, 26, and 27 directed
to the perpendicular grain direction feature of the claimed two layer sound board. Initially,
we agree with Appellant (Brief, pages 7 and 8) that the Oehrlein reference has little
teaching value with regard to the claimed sound board on appeal before us. As argued by
Appellant, Oehrlein’s disclosure relates to the bottom board of a guitar, not the sound
board. Further, Oehrlein specifically discloses (column 3, lines 5-8) that his invention does
not relate to sound boards.
Upon review of the Petek and Sloane references, however, it is our view that
Oehrlein is not required for a proper rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As asserted by
the Examiner, the existing combination of Petek and Sloane will result in a two-ply plywood
sound board with the grain direction of the two layers running in perpendicular directions
as claimed. We find particularly compelling the evidence provided by the Examiner
(Answer, pages 7 and 8) in the form of a dictionary definition of “plywood” provided by
Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary describing a plywood structure as one in
which layers of wood are glued together with the grains of adjoining layers at right angles
to each other. We also make the observation that, although Appellant filed a Reply Brief,
no argument and/or evidence was presented in rebuttal of the Examiner’s position.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007