Appeal No. 98-1458 Page 16
Application No. 08/499,211
The examiner contended (final rejection, p. 2) that the
rib's (i.e., the ridge 30 of Godes) dimensions are merely
design choices. The appellants (brief, p. 12) disagreed.
It is our opinion that the claimed thickness and height
of the rib would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made in view of the
teachings of Godes. In that regard, Godes teaches that the
ridges 30 and 34 have a thickness sufficient to limit the
penetration of fastener 16 and thereby create a clearance
space 36 between the head of the fastener 16 and the panel 12.
Accordingly, the thickness of the ridges must exceed the
thickness of the head of the fastener. The extent to which
the thickness of the ridges exceeds the thickness of the head
of the fastener would have been an obvious matter of
designer's choice based upon the amount of clearance space
desired. As to the height of Godes' ridge 30, Godes' Figure 4
is sufficient in our view to suggest that the height of the
ridge exceed the thickness of the ridge.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007