Appeal No. 97-3218
Application 08/541,947
plastic material within the aforementioned range permits a
side of the
corner to be adjustably foldable to form a third seam at a
chosen angle, as claimed.
Turning to the Rillo teaching, we find that the patentee
specifies a plastic corner piece with the basic thickness of
the plastic being, e.g. .005NN to .010NN (column 1, lines 50
through 53 and column 2, lines 37 through 40). Thus, the
plastic material of Rillo falls on the low, thinner end of the
acceptable thickness range specified by appellant for the
present invention. Clearly, as was the case with the material
thickness for appellant’s corner, the plastic material
thickness of the Rillo patent would permit a slit side of the
corner to be adjustably foldable to form a third seam at a
chosen angle, as now claimed. For this reason, we simply
cannot agree with the argued and unsupported viewpoint of
appellant as to the adjustable foldability of the corner of
Rillo being “impossible”.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007