Appeal 2007-4307
Application 10/173,095
There is no indication that the inventors took into consideration teachings in
the art, such as those of Nakanishi, suggesting the use of a nitrile-phenolic
cement as an adhesive for use with metal substrates. Moreover, the scope of
the statement is narrower than claim 18, which is not limited to a
honeycomb core or a nitrile-phenolic cement. Thus, although we credit the
inventors' statement that the result was unexpected to them, we cannot give
it much weight in view of its failure to account for pertinent teachings in the
art and the broader scope of what is claimed versus what was discovered.
CONCLUSION
Obviousness is not limited to a literal combination of prior-art
elements.53 Rather the question is what a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have expected in view of the combination of references. A person
with skill in an art can reasonably be expected to apply techniques that work
in one context to a problem in a related context.54
Those in the art knew how to co-cure resin-fiber face sheets with
metal cloth. Such face sheets with openings literally meet the reinforcing
structure limitation. Even if the reinforcing structure must be read to apply
to the honeycomb cell layer, those skilled in art would have been able to
cross apply the lessons of co-curing a face sheet and the metal cloth with the
cell layer. The interposed component could itself be a resin-fiber face sheet.
The examiner has argued that the molecular interpenetration would be
the inherent result of using the same resins that Airbus uses.55 Airbus
53 In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
54 KSR Int'l, 127 S. Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
55 E.g., Ans. 8.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013