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
interface.
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