Appeal 2007-0102
Application 10/338,988
supported by the fact that providing Kawate with Jackson’s bend lines and
Uchida’s V-shaped grooves would have yielded predictable and
advantageous results. KSR, 127 S.Ct at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In further support of his no-motivation argument, the Appellant
points out that Kawate’s device would not experience the type of problem
addressed by the here-claimed invention, that is, “there would be no crush
of material making the use of notches desirable” in Kawate (Br. 11).
However, the reason to combine prior art references does not have to be
identical to that of the applicant in order to establish obviousness. KSR,
127 S.Ct. at 1743, 82 USPQ2d at 1398; In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430,
40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
In light of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s
contention that one skilled in this art would not have combined the applied
references in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
For a number for reasons, we also are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s
argument that claim 1 distinguishes over Kawate by reciting that the claimed
projections are “for the purpose of attaching said lamella element to said
radiator sheet.”
First, this recitation is merely a statement of intended use such that
claim 1 reads on Appellant’s disclosed embodiment wherein the lamella
element has been inserted into a U-shaped radiator sheet prior to the step of
pressing on the projections to thereby clamp the lamella element in place
(Specification 11:5-9). Prior to the pressing step, the projections of this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013