Appeal No. 1999-1904 Page 4
Application No. 08/704,778
"complementary" as used by Scarlett means "a surface of one member which mates with the
cooperating surface of the other member in a generally uncompressed or relaxed joint
configuration, thereby achieving a 'self-locking' arrangement" (column 3, lines 10-14). With
regard to the joint, Scarlett discloses that
[d]uring fabrication of the joint by insertion of the tongues 31 into grooves 13
and 23, the respective legs 37 of the tongue 31 are biased
or forced towards each other against the peripheral edges 16 of the groove 13
until the widest point of the tongue is within the groove. Thereafter, and during
continued insertion, the legs of original orientation [sic]. As may be seen in
FIG. 8, restoration of the legs 37 to their unbiased orientation may be aided by
spline 18 cooperating with side walls 38 of slot 36. The precise machining of
the respective tongue and groove surfaces must provide for sufficient clearance
to permit sufficient glue dispersal and adhesion between the surfaces. Excess
glue may be transmitted by the pressure of the closed joint into a pocket formed
between the tip 53 of spline 18 and the terminus 39 of slot 36 as well as in two
pockets formed between groove bases 17 and tongue edges 33, as may be seen
in FIG. 8.
As will be readily apparent, the design of joint hereinbefore described is
self-locking inasmuch as each member is in a generally non-stressed or non-
deflected condition when the joint has been fully assembled, and the joint cannot
be separated thereafter without the application of force. This is in contrast to
prior joint designs in which the tongue member remains under compression or
biased out of position in the assembled joint, which may precipitate or permit
separation or disconnection of the joint surfaces [column 6, lines 12-38].
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp.
v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In other words, there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007