Appeal No. 98-1458 Page 8
Application No. 08/499,211
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6) that claims 1
through 5 are patentable since the above-quoted limitation
from claim 1 is not met by Godes. Specifically, the
appellants point to the relationship between hammer 35 and
ridges 30 and 34 as shown in Figure 4 of Godes as establishing
that Godes lacks the above-quoted limitation from claim 1. We
do not agree. As pointed above, it is only necessary for the
claims to "read on" the siding panel disclosed in Godes to be
"fully met" by it. In this instance, while there are nail
driving articles (such as the hammer 35 shown in Figure 4 of
Godes) that are not able to be accommodated within the space
between Godes' ridges 30 and 34, we agree with the examiner
(answer, p. 4) that the space between Godes' ridges 30 and 34
is sufficient to accommodate other nail driving articles such
as a small head hammer or an air-pressure nail gun, which have
heads/nozzles smaller than the head of hammer 35.
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are met by Godes,
the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed. Claims 2 through 5 which depend from
claim 1 have not been separately argued by the appellants as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007