Appeal No. 98-2122 Page 9
Application No. 08/607,886
Fig. 14a, Hilsey states that the panels may also include
internal reinforcing in the form of "metallic mesh" which is
"similar to metal fencing material" (col. 11, lines 39-42).
Noting that the issue of obviousness is not only determined by
what the references expressly state but also is determined by
what they would fairly suggest to those of ordinary skill in
the art (see, e.g., In re Delisle, 406 F.2d 1386, 1389, 160
USPQ 806, 808-09 (CCPA 1969) and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,
1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549-50 (CCPA 1969)), we are of the opinion
that this disclosure by Hilsey would have fairly suggested
"wire" reinforcement as claimed.
Claims 1-5, 12-14 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Collins. As
set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the answer, Myers discloses sub-
stantially all the limitations set forth (including a mounting
post having a notch to receive the notch end of the panel so as
to form a tongue and groove-type connection wherein the width
of the mounting post relative to the width of the panel is
within the claimed range - see Figs. 5 and 6) with the3
3See Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105, 1106 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1993) and Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007