Appeal No. 97-1445 Page 10
Application No. 08/202,254
thus, "stand or fall independently from" claims 8 through 10,
12 and 20 through 25 (brief, page 13). Notwithstanding that
37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)(7) expressly states that merely pointing out
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to
why the claims are separately patentable, we note that Kaplan
(Figure 9) does disclose four curvilinear building blocks,
thereby meeting the limitation of both "at least one" and "at
least two" curvilinear masonry building unit(s).
For the above reasons, we shall sustain the rejection of
claims 8 through 10, 12 and 20 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan.
In rejecting claim 17, the examiner relies on the
teachings of Gillet (see column 3, lines 14 through 24 and
Figures 2 and 3) to provide notches (23) in concrete building
blocks for receiving horizontal reinforcement rods (24), when
such appear necessary (see answer, page 5). The examiner
states that, in view of the teachings of Gillet, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
the masonry building block (102) of Kaplan with means (notches
23) for receiving horizontally placed reinforcement rods "to
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007