Appeal No. 98-2122 Page 10
Application No. 08/607,886
exception of the panel being centered with respect to mounting
post. Collins, however, teaches a wall structure (col. 1, line
67) having a mounting post 30 and a panel 20 wherein the notch
end of a panel is received in a notch in the mounting post so
as to form a tongue and groove-type connection. Collins also
teaches that the panel should be centered with respect to the
mounting post (see, e.g., Fig. 5). The width of the mounting
post relative to the width of panel (like the primary reference
to Myers) appears to be within the claimed range (see Figs. 5
and 11). A combined consideration of Myers and Collins would
have fairly suggested to the artisan to modify the appearance
of Myers' wall (wherein the center of the panel is offset from
the center of the mounting post such that the mounting post and
panels are flush on one side and the mounting posts protrude on
the other side) in order to achieve a more traditional fence-
F.2d 775, 782, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985): “It is also
an elementary principle of patent law that when, as by a
recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several
compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in
the prior art.” Note also the court’s analysis in In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) concerning the need to show criticality for a
claimed range in order to establish obviousness. Here, page 6
of the specification merely indicates that the range is
preferred.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007