Appeal No. 2007-0048 Page 4
Application No. 10/234,608
thereby providing an alternative means to separate panels from the web,”
and, alternatively, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide Martin’s web with “at least one perforation,” because as
Kim suggests, it would facilitate separating the web into panels of desired
size” (p. 7).
Appellant argues that Gray and Kim would not suggest modifying
Martin to reach the claimed invention because neither reference, though
teaching perforations, teach perforations in a “dual web/aerogel-filled panel
construct.” Appellant concedes that Gray and Kim disclose perforations in a
unitary panel but not in a “dual web/aerogel-filled panel construct.”
However, it is Martin which shows the “dual web/aerogel-filled panel
construct.” We note that Appellant does not traverse our findings in our
Decision on Appeal regarding Martin. The decision (p. 10) clearly states that
“Martin discloses a web comprising a plurality of aerogel-filled vacuum
insulated panels which can be cut into individual units as claimed.” In
arguing that Gray and Kim do not specifically apply perforations to a “dual
web/aerogel-filled panel construct,” without taking into consideration that
Martin teaches the “dual web/aerogel-filled panel construct,” Appellant fails
to consider the combined teachings of the references.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Whether or not an
individual reference teaches a specific element of the claimed product is not
dispositive of the question of obviousness. Non-obviousness cannot be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013