Appeal No. 1999-1485
Application No. 08/317,355
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant's specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the1
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
The rejection on appeal is not sustained.
Independent claim 21 is drawn to a structural assembly
comprising, inter alia, a calibrated gusset plate having a
generally planar body portion, with the body portion having
alignment indicia at mid points of at least four opposed
edges. Independent claim 29 is drawn to a structural assembly
comprising, inter alia, a calibrated gusset plate having a
1In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007