Appeal No. 98-2122 Page 7
Application No. 08/607,886
there was a recognition that it could be used to perform the
claimed function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Note also
LaBounty Mfg. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1075, 22
USPQ2d 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, Hilsey discloses a wall including first and second
panels (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 2) which are assembled in a
fashion similar to a tongue and groove structure (see Figs. 2,
7 and 9a; col. 2, lines 5-7). The panel members are provided
with a grid-work of embedded reinforcing bars or rods placed on
approximately 14 inch centers (see col. 5, lines 11-14), which
grid-work would include both vertical and horizontal bars.
Noting that independent claims 1 and 18 set forth that the
mounting post may be one times the width of the panel (i.e.,
the same width as the panel), the end of the panel containing
the groove and at least one vertical reinforcing rod can be
considered to be the "mounting post" as broadly claimed. As to
the limitation that the wall is a "noise abatement" wall, the
wall of Hilsey clearly has the capability of being used as a
noise abatement wall (see In re Schreiber, supra) and whether
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007