Appeal 2007-0102
Application 10/338,988
his projections but that it would have been obvious for one with ordinary
skill in the art to provide Kawate with notches along the edge in order to
assist in folding and thus forming the projections as taught by Jackson or
Uchida (Answer 5-6).
The Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Kawate and Jackson or Uchida in the manner proposed by the
Examiner (Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3-4). Additionally, the Appellant argues
that the appealed claims differ from Kawate in ways not recognized by the
Examiner. In particular, the Appellant contends that Kawate contains no
teaching or suggestion that his projections are “for the purpose of attaching
said lamella element to said radiator sheet” as recited in claim 1 or that the
first length of Kawate’s projections “is approximately equal to the length of
the lamella element” (claim 1) or “is equal to the respective edge length”
(claim 3). Br. 8-10, 12. Moreover, it is the Appellant’s position that Kawate
contains no teaching or suggestion of the claim 16 step “forming a slightly
opened U-sheet by folding the projections; and inserting said at least one
lamella element into the U-like sheet” (Br. 12-13).
OPINION
For the reasons expressed in the Answer and below, we will sustain
the rejection before us in this appeal.
The No-Motivation Argument
Contrary to the Appellant’s belief, a teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013