Appeal No. 97-1445 Page 11
Application No. 08/202,254
increase the rigidity of the wall" (answer, page 5). We agree
with the examiner. In our opinion, the teachings of Gillet
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant's invention the provision of structure
on the building blocks of Kaplan for receiving horizontally
placed reinforcement rods to further reinforce the wall in
applications where additional reinforcement is deemed
necessary.
The appellant argues that Gillet does not suggest joining
the building blocks with mortar and thus does not overcome the
alleged deficiencies of Kaplan (brief, page 11). We do not
find this argument persuasive because, as discussed above, it
is our opinion that the claims require only that the blocks be
capable of being joined with mortar and that the blocks of
Kaplan meet this limitation.
The appellant further argues that "the blocks suggested
by Gillet must be carefully arranged relative to each other so
as to form a desired angle" as distinguished from the blocks
of the appellant's invention, which have angled side faces
which will ensure the proper alignment (brief, page 11). This
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007