Appeal No. 98-1036
Application 08/540,193
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejections of claim 8 or of claims 9 through 14 which
depend therefrom.
Claim 8 recites a baseboard support form system
comprising, inter alia, a form body which includes a curved
lower surface permitting the carpet strip to be curved
thereunder. Although Schafer discloses a molding track 10
which constitutes a
baseboard support form, this reference does not teach, and
would not have suggested, a molding track having a curved
lower surface as required by claim 8. The examiner's
contention that the bottom 13 of the Schafer track is the
"functional equivalent" of a curved lower surface (answer,
page 5), even if true, is simply of no moment. Expedients
which are functionally equivalent to each other are not
necessarily obvious in view of one another. In re Scott, 323
F.2d 1016, 1019, 139 USPQ 297, 299 (CCPA 1963).
Habrant, applied in combination with Schafer in the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of dependent claims 11 through 14, fails to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007