Appeal No. 97-1445 Page 12
Application No. 08/202,254
argument is not persuasive, because it is directed to
limitations not appearing in claim 17. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Since we are in agreement with the examiner that the wall
corner of claim 17 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art based on the combined teachings of Kaplan and
Gillet, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 46 through 56, which require that
the masonry building units either form a "non-interlocking"
joint or be joinable with other masonry building units to form
a "non-interlocking" joint, it is the examiner's position that
Rinninger (Figure 12a) evidences that a non-interlocking
connection between curvilinear building blocks is well known
in the art (answer, page 5). According to the examiner, it
would have been obvious to modify the interlocking connections
between the units of Kaplan with the non-interlocking joints
as taught by Rinninger to reduce the cost of manufacturing the
building units (answer, page 6). However, as pointed out by
the appellant on page 12 of the brief, Rinninger discloses
concrete paving stones "for the paving of gardens and parks,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007