Appeal No. 1999-0705 Page 5
Application No. 08/129,615
Moreover, we have reviewed the teachings of Donaldson but we find nothing therein
which overcomes the deficiency of Matthews discussed above. Therefore, it is our opinion that
the combined teachings of Matthews and Donaldson are not sufficient to have rendered the
subject matter of independent claims 1, 15, 25, 29, 30 and 35 obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.3
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 15, 25, 29, 30 and 35, or of claims 6, 16, 26, 28 and 32 which depend therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Donaldson.
As to independent claim 17, which, as discussed above, also recites "web sides meeting
in a common line forming a generally inverted, smoothly contoured and curved, U-shaped
groove tile cut line," we have reviewed the teachings of Cole but find nothing therein which
overcomes the above-noted deficiency of the combination of Matthews and Donaldson.
Therefore, we also shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 17, or claims 19 and 22
which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view
of Donaldson and Cole.
We have also reviewed the teachings of O'Donnell but find nothing therein which
overcomes the above-noted deficiency of the combination of Matthews and Donaldson or
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007