Appeal No. 98-2122 Page 5
Application No. 08/607,886
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in . . . [the] . . .
factual basis.” As to the examiner's contention that the
proposed modification would provide a "functionally equivalent"
wall structure, it is well settled that equivalency does not
establish obviousness. See In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016, 1019-
20, 139 USPQ 297, 299-300 (CCPA 1963) and In re Flint, 330 F.2d
363, 367-68, 141 USPQ 299, 302 (CCPA 1964).
With respect to claims 3, 8, 10-14 and 19-24, we have
carefully reviewed the teachings of Pickett but find nothing
therein which would overcome the deficiencies of Myers that we
have noted above.
Both of the above-noted rejections are reversed.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejections:
Claims 1, 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hilsey. Initially we note that the
terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given
its broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007