Appeal No. 1999-1904 Page 6
Application No. 08/704,778
While we fully appreciate and have carefully considered the above-mentioned teachings
of Scarlett and the appellant's arguments with respect thereto, we also note that Scarlett uses
language such as "a generally uncompressed or relaxed joint configuration" (column 3, lines
12-13), "substantially eliminate lateral compressive forces within the assembled joint" (column
3, lines 43-44) and "in a generally non-stressed or non-deflected condition when the joint has
been fully assembled" (column 6, lines 31-32). The significance of the use of the terms2
"generally" and "substantially" is made clear in column 7, lines 5-17, where Scarlett states
[a]s will be understood by a person skilled in the relevant art, wood products are
susceptible to dimensional change with variations of the moisture content of the
wood. Also, mechanical cutting devices are subject to change in dimension from
heat and wear. Thus, although the preferred form of the invention results in a
finished joint in which the legs 37 are not laterally deflected, and with a fine glue
line between mating surfaces of the joint, it will be understood that variations in
dimensions may result in some lateral deflection of the legs 37, without departing
from the desired mechanical locking effect of the joint or the maximized surface
contact in the joint which results in a fine glue line.
From the teachings of Scarlett as a whole, it is clear that, in a preferred form of the invention,
the legs 37 are not laterally deflected and also that products whose dimensions vary somewhat
from the preferred dimensions as a result of machining tolerances and expansion of the wood
with variations in moisture content of the wood, thereby resulting in some lateral deflection of
the legs 37 in the finished joint, are a non-preferred, but acceptable, form of the invention.
The underlining, not present in the Scarlett text, has been supplied for emphasis.2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007