Appeal 2007-2888
Application 11/017,602
foam insulating element would have been compatible with prior art foam
insulating elements (as described in Sloan) which lack plastic casing. While
such arrangement might not make use of Sloan’s improved insulating
element, “a finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a
particular combination need not be supported by a finding that the prior art
suggests that the combination claimed by the patent applicant is the
preferred, or most desirable, combination.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1200, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 13 and
15.
OTHER ISSUES
If prosecution in this application is continued, we suggest additional
findings be made about the conventionality of interference and forced fits in
the context of installing insulation. In this regard, we note the following:
Fink (U.S. Pat. No. 3,095,671, Jul. 17, 1956) teaches assembling
insulating elements by friction force fit (Fink, at col. 3, ll. 63-65).
Nelson (U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,106, Jan. 15, 1991) teaches that insulation
for reducing appliance noise has a “snug fit” for optimal acoustical and
vibrational dampening (Nelson, col. 12, l. 54 to col. 13, l. 4). Nelson also
describes adjusting the dimensions of the insulation when utilizing a force
interference fit (Nelson, col. 13, ll. 13-18).
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013