Appeal No. 2005-1690
Application 10/324,922
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
rejections before us on appeal will not be sustained. Our
reasoning in support of that determination follows.
In contending that the “tape-on drywall accessory” defined
in claims 1 and 2 on appeal is anticipated by the drywall edge
finishing strip of Tucker, the examiner has pointed to Figure 2
of that patent and urged that the corner bead seen therein, in
its final applied form, discloses all the claimed features of
appellant’s invention, including a core strip (10) having a
longitudinal arcuate channel forming a nose portion (14), first
and second flanges (16, 18) projecting transversely outwardly
from the nose portion to an edge, and paper strips (28, 30) on
top of each flange extending transversely beyond the edge of each
flange, but not covering the nose portion. In the brief and
reply brief, appellant contends that the examiner has
misconstrued what constitutes a “tape-on drywall accessory” and
disregarded the art-recognized definition of such a drywall
accessory provided on page 3, lines 6-10, of the specification.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007