Appeal No. 2007-0048 Page 6
Application No. 10/234,608
nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US 1, 17-18, 86,
S.Ct. 684, 693-94, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).”
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 136, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1687-1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The Examiner’s rejection (Answer, p. 3) reads as follows:
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lowry et al in view of Gibson et al. Lowry et al
discloses the claimed slats 12, 14, 16 absent the insulating material
as being an aerogel material. Gibson et al disclose an insulated
panel 2 of aerogel material, wherein, to incorporate this teaching
into the slats of Lowry et al for the explicit purpose of increasing the
insulation properties of the slats would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Lowry (Figs. 1 and 3) discloses a door comprising a slat assembly having
a void and states that filling this void with a thermally insulative material “results
in improved thermal insulation performance in a curtain made up of a plurality of
slat assemblies thus configured” (column 7, lines 12-15). Lowry leaves open the
specific type of thermally insulative material which may be used to fill the void
(“This void may be filled with various materials, depending upon the intended
application for the installed door,” sentence bridging columns 2-3). Thus, the
Examiner correctly points out that Lowry teaches the “plurality of slats defined by
front, back, and side panels with an insulating material disposed therein” recited
in the preamble of claim 1. The Examiner points out that Lowry does not teach
aerogel as a candidate thermally insulative material and thus does not teach
aerogel material filing in the void within the slat assembly as claim 1 requires.2
2 Notwithstanding that Lowry teaches an insulated overhead door, it should also be pointed out
that due to the Jepson format of representative claim 1, appellant has impliedly admitted that the
insulated overhead door described in the preamble of the claim is old in the art. Rowe v. Dror,
112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013