Appeal No. 2006-1325
Application No. 10/163,610
1 increase the strength of the system” (Answer 6). Appellants contend that
2 one skilled in the art would have found no motivation to combine the
3 teachings of Kelley and Swensson and that, even if combined, they would
4 not have suggested all the elements of the claims so rejected. In particular,
5 Appellants urge that Swensson cannot have suggested an integrally molded
6 frame, because Swensson does not disclose any frame, much less an
7 integrally molded frame (Br. 18-21). Further, according to Appellants, the
8 Examiner’s stated motivation to combine “to increase the strength of the
9 system” is not well founded because Kelley’s system is designed to divide a
10 room and is not a load bearing wall (Br. 20-21).
11 The motivation to modify Kelley to use integrally molded parts, such
12 as an integrally molded frame or portions of a frame, either with or without
13 an integrally molded façade, is found in Swensson’s teaching that using pre-
14 fabricated and preferably integrally molded parts in modular wall structures
15 facilitates installation and improves structural integrity. While Kelley’s
16 divider walls may not be designed or intended to bear building loads, they
17 are substantial walls and are designed to support loads such as cantilevered
18 work surfaces, shelves and CRT video display panels. Accordingly, one of
19 ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that ease of installation and
20 structural integrity would be desirable attributes for the wall units of
21 Kelley’s system and would have found suggestion to modify Kelley as
22 proposed by the Examiner. That Swensson may not specifically teach or
23 suggest an integrally molded frame of the type used by Appellants is of no
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013