Appeal No. 97-1445 Page 13
Application No. 08/202,254
paths or the like" (column 1, lines 5 through 7) rather than a
masonry building unit. The paving stones are merely laid in a
single layer on the ground and are not intended to be stacked
vertically on one another to form a wall. Consequently, a
paving stone is not subjected to the same stresses placed on
building units in a vertically extending wall. Given the
disparate nature of paved paths and the walls disclosed by
Kaplan as discussed above, it is our opinion that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to look to
the teachings of a paving block for alternative arrangements
for joining the building blocks of Kaplan to construct a wall.
Moreover, in view of the teaching by Kaplan of the importance
of providing an interlocking relationship between the
adjoining building blocks (column 2, last paragraph), we are
of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
discouraged from modifying the blocks of Kaplan to provide a
non-interlocking connection between adjacent blocks.
Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 46 through 56 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Rinninger.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007