Appeal No. 2000-0520
Application No. 08/956,160
brackets to each include an annular wall for receipt of one
end of the reinforcing tube. In this vein, the appellants
submit that
Katz does not disclose nor suggest, Appellants'
claimed reinforcing tube 26. Accordingly, it is
impossible for Katz to obviate Appellants' claimed
structure including an annular wall 24 which defines
an aperture for receiving a reinforcing tube 26.
Note that the Katz upstanding wall portions and
transverse wall portions 44, 46, 56, and 58 are
similar in nature to Appellants' marginal wall 40
which receives the lower end of the baluster 14.
However, this is not identical nor equivalent to
Appellants' claimed structure, including an annular
wall which defines an aperture for receiving a
reinforcing tube [brief, pages 4 and 5].
Assuming for the sake of argument that it would have been
obvious to use brackets of the type disclosed by Katz to mount
the admitted prior art balusters to their top rail and bottom
support, it stands to reason that the sockets 60 formed by the
upstanding wall portions 44, 46, 56 and 58 would receive the
ends of the admitted prior art balusters as well as the ends
of the reinforcing tubes extending through the hollow
interiors of the balusters. Wall portions 44, 46, 56 and 58,
however, do not respond to the limitations in claim 9
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007