Appeal No. 98-2122 Page 11
Application No. 08/607,886
like appearance (wherein the centers of the mounting post and
panel are aligned such that the mounting posts protrude from
both sides, thus creating a uniform appearance when viewed from
either side) as taught by Collins.
Apparently anticipating a rejection based upon the
combined teachings of Meyers and Collins (a rejection which, as
we have noted above, was never made, the appellant in the
parent application argued that:
Assuming for the sake of argument, that Collins
is applied to the claims in singly or in combination
with Myers et al., applicant's invention is still not
taught. Firstly, Collins has a post with two panels
mounted on each side thereof. The panels must then
be clipped to the post with additional devices 40.
Such devices 40 of Collins are not required or used
by either Myers et al. or applicant. Secondly, to
use such devices would destroy the function of both
Myers et al. wall and applicant's wall. Devices 40,
41, 42 and 43 alone renders Collins inapplicable to
applicant's wall.
Furthermore, devices 40 et al. alone mitigate
against the combination of Myers et al. and Collins.
The Collins post is hollow, stands alone, and
receives a panel on each side. Myers et al. has a
post incorporated in the panel. Modifying either
structure to incorporate the other would destroy
their function.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the
combination of Myers et al. and Collins is possible,
applicant's invention still is not taught. No
reference or reasonable combination thereof shows
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007