Ex parte GLADFELTER et al. - Page 4

               Appeal No. 1997-0043                                                                                             
               Application 08/071,596                                                                                           

               materials that are mechanically interlocked by a tongue and groove interlocked, wherein the interlock is         
               enhanced by squeezing the two materials together during the formation of the convoluted surface (co. 1,          
               line 52-68).  Thus, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found that the disclosed bar is essentially     
               of unitary construction that is not formed so as to be separable into two parts at the tongue and groove         
                      Therefore, we find no disclosure in Joshi et al. which would support the examiner’s positions             
               that “the use of the tongue and groove mechanism inherently facilitates the possible removal of the two          
               portions without damaging said portions” (answer, page 4) and that “it would have been obvious to one            
               of ordinary skill in the art to formulate such a bar because of Joshi’s teaching of an interlocking              
               mechanism for two detergent compositions” (id., page 5).  Indeed, while the examiner admits that the             
               reference “does not specifically state’ or “teach” that “the bar is capable of separation into its two           
               portions without destruction” (id., pages 4-5), no evidence or reasonable scientific explanation is              
               advanced on the record showing how the enhanced tongue and groove interlocking mechanism                         
               disclosed in Joshi et al. would necessarily inherently permit the separation of the bar into two parts           
               without destruction of either part, such that the parts can be removably refitted together as required by        
               claim 1, see King, supra, or why and how one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably                 
               modified the bar intended by Joshi et al. to be a unitary entity, to successfully achieve the requirements       
               of the claimed invention.  See, e.g., In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.                 
               Cir. 1984).  Furthermore, we agree with appellants that the shape of the two individual parts forming the        
               bar and the thus formed bar of Joshi et al. do not correspond to the shape of the bar and the insert             
               formed by the claimed solid system encompassed by claim 1.                                                       
                      Thus, on this record, it is manifest that the only description of and direction to appellants’            
               claimed invention as a whole on the record before us is supplied by appellants’ own specification.               

                      The examiner’s decision is reversed.                                                                      

                                                             - 4 -                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007