Appeal No. 2007-0484 10
permit both compression and flexion. Those in the art were concerned with
deforming resilient inserts to fit them snugly into tight structural openings and
were willing to perform the simple tinkering needed to confirm their expectations.
The addition of a known feature to produce an expected result is an obvious
modification.
Claim 22: domains of panel thickness
Dow contests the obviousness for dependent claim 22 for the same reasons
given for parent claim 1, which are not adopted, and because the added limitation
regarding the thickness of the panel domains. Providing equally thick domains
would have been obvious. Those skilled in the art knew to select a configuration
that would work. Indeed, the simplest way to produce two hinged sections would
be to partially split a panel (which would typically have a uniform thickness) or to
connect two identical panels. Absent some other consideration, equal thickness
would have been the default choice.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 22 as having been obvious in view of the
Walendy and Ducharme patents is AFFIRMED. The rejections of the remaining
pending claims other than claim 18, which stand or fall with the rejection of
claim 1, are likewise AFFIRMED.
Steven W. Mork, DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Midland, Michigan, for appellant.
Jane Rhee, with Patrick Joseph Ryan, GROUP ART UNIT 1745.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013