Appeal 2007-1934
Application 09/993,443
1 c) Anguera ‘191 drills a bore, moves the work piece and then inserts a
2 pin, which is not the same as positioning the drill on an outside edge of the
3 boards and the pin press on the opposite outside edge of the boards, where
4 the drill and pin press axes are substantially aligned; and sequentially
5 drilling then pinning while the boards are laterally and vertically compressed
6 (Br. 6-8).
7 21. Applicant argues that Lewis does “suggest the currently boring
8 and pin insertion” but does not cure the deficiencies of (a-c) above (Br. 8).
9 22. Applicant argues that Larsen has no suggestion to any aspect of
10 the invention because it is not a permanent structure (can be easily
11 disassembled) and therefor is of only interest as “state of the art” (Br. 8).
12 23. Applicant argues that Anguera ‘395 teaches a metal key that is
13 driven into boreholes for joining adjacent boards together and adds nothing
14 to Anguera ‘191 (Br. 9).
15 24. Applicant argues that Anglehart3 glues its planks together instead
16 of pinning them together and that there is no showing that gluing is
17 equivalent to pinning (Br. 9).
18 25. Applicant argues that its claimed alternating of wood grain for the
19 purposes of increasing strength has nothing to do with Anglehart’s
20 alternating of wood grain for preventing warping (Br. 9).
21 26. Applicant also attacks the combination of the prior art references
22 and argues that (1) the Examiner’s statement that the steps are “obvious
3 Applicant calls this reference “JPN 002”.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013