Appeal 2006-2612
Application 10/225,316
ll. 3-33) discloses a particular manner of forming the honeycomb network
structure thereof including the use of compression bonded sheets of
thermoplastic to form a honeycomb network and using S-shaped wall
segments. The Examiner’s suggestion to change the entire shape of the cells
of Landi amounts to more than just a change in shape but a change in the
fundamental way the honeycomb panel of Landi would be put together or
would operate, as basically argued by Appellant (Br. 16).
In this regard, the Examiner has not established how tetrahedral shape
walls and an apex base would have been recognized as a workable
alternative, much less have been suggested as an alternative, to the
honeycomb core structure formed of S-shaped wall segments and top and
bottom core facing sheets used by Landi. Therefore, the per se rule relied
upon by the Examiner does not furnish a relevant teaching related to the
perforated honeycomb structure of Landi that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to jettison the construction techniques disclosed
therein in favor of employing disparate tetrahedral shape sidewalls and an
apex base end as required by the appealed claims subject to this obviousness
rejection.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007