Appeal No. 97-0381
Application 08/324,108
In the present case, the combined teachings of Kuhr and
Dawdy do not provide the factual basis necessary to support a
conclusion that the subject matter recited in claim 12 would have
been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. As noted
above, Kuhr does not teach and would not have suggested a wall
manufacturing method having the rigid rail attaching and removing
steps recited in appealed claim 12. Arguably, Dawdy’s rather
broad teaching of temporarily bracing a wallboard to a stud until
the adhesive therebetween sets and then removing the bracing
would have suggested the addition of similar steps to Kuhr’s
method. There is nothing in the combined teachings of these
references, however, which would have suggested the addition to
Kuhr’s method of the specific “bracing” steps required by claim
12, to wit: “attaching a rigid rail to said studs to overly and
in contact with the wallboard to urge said wallboard against said
studs as said glue cures; and removing the rail when said glue
has set.” The examiner’s conclusion that these particular
limitations would have been obvious matters of choice is based,
not on fact, but on speculation, unfounded assumptions and a
hindsight reconstruction of the appellant’s invention.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007