Appeal No. 2005-0775 Page 4
Application No. 09/815,628
The fittings “are all hollow members having a plurality of angularly oriented,
unidirectional, intersecting cavities having a generally rectangular cross-sectional
configuration of sufficient size to provide a smooth slip fit between the fittings and the
rail and baluster members” (column 2, lines 1-6). In light of this teaching, one of
ordinary skill in the art viewing the disclosures of Venegas I and Bobrowski would not
have been led to modify the guard rail assembly of Venegas I by segmenting the hollow
circular stanchions and fastening them together using fittings having circular cavities to
accommodate the circular stanchions, as proposed by the examiner, as such an
arrangement would not prevent rotation of the stanchions within the cavities as taught
by Bobrowski. We thus cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 17 as
being unpatentable over Venegas in view of Bobrowski
We also cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 17 and 25 as
being unpatentable over Venegas I in view of Venegas II. Again recognizing that
Venegas I lacks rails which are “releasably engaged” to the vertical posts as required by
claim 17, the examiner has taken the position that it would have been obvious to include
releasable engagement between the rail and post members of Venegas I “for the
purpose of facilitating removal and installation of said assembly in distinct locations as
taught by Venegas II” (final rejection, page 3). Quite simply, Venegas I and Venegas II
disclose two distinct ways of constructing a guard rail or hand rail using metal
stanchions or posts and rails covered by plastic sheathing. From our perspective, one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007