Appeal No. 97-0381
Application 08/324,108
Claims 12 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kuhr in view of Dawdy.3
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 7 and 9) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 8)
for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner
with regard to the merits of this rejection.
Kuhr discloses a method of manufacturing a building wall or
partition 60. With reference to Figure 6, Kuhr states that
the partition 60 is built by connecting the floor
runner 61 and the ceiling runner 62 with the end studs
63 and the intermediate studs 64, and attaching the
wallboard 66 to the resulting framework. . . . The
wallboard 66 may be attached to the studs 63 and 64 and
to the runners 61 and 62 by the screws 68 or an
adhesive [column 3, lines 11 through 25].
As implicitly conceded by the examiner (see pages 3 and 4 in
the answer), Kuhr does not teach and would not have suggested a
wall manufacturing method having the rigid rail attaching and
removing steps specified in appealed claim 12. Indeed, Kuhr does
not disclose any such “bracing” steps.
3This ground of rejection was applied to claims 13 and 14
for the first time in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 8). The
rejection of claims 13 and 14 which had been set forth in the
final rejection (Paper No. 5) has been withdrawn by the examiner
(see page 5 in the answer).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007