Appeal No. 1998-1716 Page 8
Application No. 08/526,942
The examiner ascertained (answer, p. 5) that Myers taught
the claimed invention "except for it being formed in a
vertical mold assembly." The examiner then determined
(answer, p. 5) that it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to form the wall section (i.e., panel 42) of Myers "by
casting it within a vertical mold assembly in the shape of the
wall section" as taught by any one of the secondary references
(i.e., Scholz, Stout, Williams, Vaughan, Wolfe, Ham, Bryant or
Atterbury), or to use the process of each of the secondary
references to shape the wall section of Myers.
While we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to form the wall section (i.e.,
panel 42) of Myers "by casting it within a vertical mold
assembly in the shape of the wall section" as taught by any
one of the secondary references, the combined teachings of the
applied prior art are not suggestive of the claimed invention.
In that regard, it is our view that secondary references would
have suggested vertically casting Myers' wall section in an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007