Appeal No. 97-3218
Application 08/541,947
We are not persuaded by the argument of appellant as to
the patentability of claim 1.
Appellant’s focus is upon the perceived rigidity of the
plastic drywall corner of Rillo (main brief, pages 10 and 11
and reply brief, page 2) which drywall corner appellant views
as inherently “unfoldable” (main brief, page 12) or
“impossible” to be adjustably foldable (reply brief, page 2).
Like the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5), we do not
share appellant’s point of view as to the rigidity of the
corner of Rillo or its being inherently unfoldable, as
explained, infra.
Initially, we recognize that appellant instructs us
(specification, page 9) that the present invention can be
practiced with the corner made of plastic material of a
thickness
from “under 2 or 3 mils to well over 25 mils” (under .002 inch
or .003 inch to well over .025 inch). Thus, a thickness of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007