Appeal No. 98-1458 Page 13
Application No. 08/499,211
Claims 13, 15, 16, 20 through 24 and 26
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 13, 15, 16,
20 through 24 and 26 is reversed since the limitations of
their respective independent claims (i.e., claim 11 or claim
17) are not suggested by the teachings of the applied prior
art. In that regard, none of the applied prior art (i.e.,
Godes, King and Hinds) would have suggested the three rib
walls as recited in claim 11 or the prefabricated building
module as recited in claim 17.
Claim 10
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 10 is
reversed since the "overlapping serpentine shape" of the hook-
like projection is not suggested by the teachings of the
applied prior art. In that regard, none of the applied prior
art (i.e., Godes, King and Hinds) would have suggested the
"overlapping serpentine shape" of the hook-like projection as
recited in claim 10.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007