Appeal No. 1999-1038
Application 08/602,125
Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Parker fails to suggest any
desirability of providing the brace disclosed therein with an
acute angle of the sort recited in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Indeed, given the relationships between the brace, joist/stud
and outlet box shown in Figures 3 through 6, Parker would
appear to teach away from such a modification. We are
therefore constrained to conclude that Parker falls short of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter recited in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, or of claims 3, 4,
6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 18 through 22 which depend therefrom,
as being unpatentable over Parker.
Since Robinson does not cure the above noted deficiencies
of Parker with respect to the subject matter recited in
independent
claims 1 and 8, we also shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 11 and 12.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007