Appeal No. 1998-0236
Application No. 08/472,536
lower post sections in an interference fit (see
Figures 2-5; column 3, lines 66-68 and column 4,
lines 5-50). The skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to provide the connector of
Vivoli with first and second mounting portions
each including a “pair of flanges”
interconnected by a “web” and “two or more
mounting bosses” extending outwardly from each
flange, wherein end portions of each flange and
the mounting bosses engage the internal wall
structure of the upper and lower post sections
in an interference fit in order to “provide
additional support and strength to the joinder
of the connected posts and provide additional
strength to resist shear and torsional loading”
[answer, page 13].
We cannot agree that the subject matter of claim 10
would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Vivoli
and Gieling. In the first place, we cannot agree that Gieling
suggests the modifications proposed by the examiner.
Furthermore, if the references were combined in the manner
proposed by the examiner, we fail to see how Vivoli’s central
body slot 4 can be retained. Without this slot, the intended
purpose of Vivoli’s connector would be destroyed.
Still further, the modifications proposed by the
examiner would not arrive at the invention defined in claim 10
as required in In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Contrary to the examiner’s position as
quoted supra, Gieling’s tabs 57 (identified as “mounting
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007