Appeal No. 96-1293
Application 07/998,673
As a consequence of our review, we have come to the conclusions
which follow.
Looking to the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that appellant has urged in the brief
that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellant's invention to provide the pads
(28) of Ziegelman with holes through which bolts set in a
foundation can be inserted. We do not agree.
Like the examiner, we consider that when the collective
teachings of Ziegelman and Patena are viewed from the perspective
of the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant's invention, it would have been obvious to such person
to provide holes in the flat steel pads (28) of Ziegelman so as
to facilitate the mounting of the prefabricated building
structure therein on a foundation like that taught and suggested
in Patena (e.g., in Figure 8). While it is true that Ziegelman
expressly notes that the pads (28) are provided to raise the
structure above the surface level of the ground "so that the site
need not be prepared for the structure in any special manner"
(col. 3, lines 66-69), we observe that such statement does not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007