Ex Parte Yoshiwara et al - Page 3




               Appeal No. 2004-2160                                                                          Page 3                  
               Application No. 09/818,851                                                                                            


               respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence                                
               of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                               
                       Each of the independent claims 1 and 13 before us in this appeal requires the                                 
               aggregate pieces within the construction block to have a circumference “in excess of 5                                
               cm.”2  The examiner concedes that “Kirkpatrick does not specifically disclose that said                               
               circumferences are in excess of 5 cm.”3 (answer, page 4) but takes the position that It                               
               would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s                                
               invention to use aggregate pieces having circumferences in excess of 5 cm “because                                    
               said pieces will create firm contact between the aggregate pieces in order to transfer                                
               vibrations” (answer, page 5).  For the following reason, the examiner’s position is not                               
               well taken.                                                                                                           
                       Kirkpatrick discloses a building block “provided with a crushed rock veneer face                              
               or the like, and provided with reinforcing elements [16, 17] to afford the block maximum                              
               strength” (lines 10-13 of Kirkpatrick).  Kirkpatrick gives absolutely no indication that the                          
               crushed rock is intended to serve any purpose other than to provide an aesthetically                                  
               pleasing veneer face and, in any event, provides no teaching or suggestion that the                                   

                       2 Our review of the record indicates that this limitation first appeared in appellants’ claims in the         
               amendment filed January 22, 2003.  Upon return of jurisdiction of this application back to the primary                
               examiner, the examiner may wish to consider whether this limitation lacks written description support in              
               the application as originally filed as required by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  The only mention          
               we find of aggregate piece size in the original application is on page 9 of the specification, wherein                
               appellants disclose three circumference ranges, namely, 50 to 60 cm (large), 20 to 40 cm (medium) and 5               
               to 10 cm (small).  Appellants’ claims, on the other hand, cover aggregate pieces of any circumference in              
               excess of 5 cm, such as 15 cm, 45 cm or greater than 60 cm, for example.                                              
                       3 Kirkpatrick is silent with respect to the circumference or size of the “crushed rock or the like” (line     
               43) used to form the crushed rock veneer face 10.                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007