Appeal 2007-4307
Application 10/173,095
Andre,25 and Rostami,26 and of Airbus representations regarding the prior
art. Airbus has not contested the availability of these references as evidence
of obviousness in this appeal.
ANALYSIS
In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must
be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims
ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject
matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. One
function of such secondary considerations is to guard against the
employment of impermissible hindsight.27
Scope and content of the prior art
Riel is directed to a noise suppression panel for use in extreme
conditions, including noise suppression for aircraft engines.28 An
embodiment is illustrated in Riel FIG. 1 (below).
24 John F. Scanlon & David M. Moorehouse, One step molded continuous
fiber reinforced perforated composite panels, US 5,246,520 (issued 1993).
25 Robert Andre, Alain Porte & Eric Rambaud, Process for the production of
an acoustically resistive layer, resistive layer thus obtained, and wall using
such layer, US 6,607,625 B2 (issued 2003).
26 Shamsedin Rostami, Polymer compositions, US 5,071,925 (issued 1991).
27 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966), cited with approval
in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
28 Riel 1:5-35
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013