Appeal No. 97-0381
Application 08/324,108
Dawdy discloses a wall manufacturing method wherein
wallboard 14 is adhered to a stud 12 by adhesive beads 30. As
described by Dawdy,
the wallboards 14 are placed against the adhesive beads
30 in the manner known in the art. The wallboard is
temporarily braced to hold it firmly against the
adhesive bead[s], while adhesive develops a strong
bond, all in accordance with the methods known in the
art. After the adhesive has set, any temporary bracing
is removed, and the wallboard 14 remains adhered to the
stud 12 [column 2, lines 3 through 10].
According to the examiner,
it would be [sic, would have been] obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to provide the method of Khur [sic, Kuhr] with the
[bracing] steps of Dawdy to ensure a rigid attachment
of the wallboard to the studs and plate members. It is
[sic, would have been] also obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the bracing means could be of any
form to ensure said glue is set properly on several
wallboards to a frame. The specific device used is a
matter [of] choice [answer, pages 3 and 4].
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual
basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78
(CCPA 1967). In making such a rejection, the examiner has the
initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may
not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Id.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007