Appeal No. 2007-0048 Page 3
Application No. 10/234,608
sound deadening … .” (Request for Reconsideration 1.) Appellant does not
dispute that it would have been obvious to use aerogel in an overhead door
for the purpose of giving the door thermal insulation. Appellant is arguing
that the use of aerogel in the overhead door would have been nonobvious
because it makes the door light weight and gives it a sound deadening
property. In other words, Appellant is arguing that the Examiner has used a
rationale different from that of Appellant’s in combining aerogel with the
slat assembly to reach the claimed invention. However, “[o]ne of ordinary
skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art
reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.” Cross Med. Prods.,
Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d
1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[T]he law does not require that the references
be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We are not persuaded that we erred in affirming the rejection of
claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Lowry and Gibson.
Claims 11-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin in view of Gray or Kim.
In the Decision on Appeal, we found ”it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one perforation in Martin’s
body (web) because, as Gray suggests, the perforation would have been
expected to facilitate tearing Martin’s body into multiple units or, in the
language of the claims, to facilitate tearing the web into individual panels,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013