Appeal No. 98-1458 Page 10
Application No. 08/499,211
claim 11 is not met by Godes. Specifically, the appellants
point out that the above-quoted limitation from claim 11 is
not readable on the solid protrusions/ridge 30 of Godes. We
agree. It is our opinion that the examiner's belief (answer,
p. 5) that Godes' solid rib 30 has the recited rib walls is
without merit. When the terms rib walls (i.e., the first rib
wall, the joining rib wall, and the second rib wall) are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, it is clear to us that the appellants'2
interpretation is correct.
Since all the limitations of claim 11 are not met by
Godes, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 11, and
claims 12 and 14 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is reversed.
Claims 17 through 19
Independent claim 17 recites a prefabricated building
module which can be combined with at least one other building
2 See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007