Appeal No. 2001-1635 Page 5
Application No. 09/294,873
Claims 1 and 7 require the jointed clamp to include
a single upper transverse member that extends through a lower half of an upper
section of said front end portion of said upper channel walls and extends through a
forward upper half portion of said upper resilient material; and a single lower
transverse member that extends through an upper half of a lower section of said
front end portion of said bottom channel walls behind where said clasp is pivotally
mounted thereto and extends through a forward lower half portion of said lower
resilient material, with the result that said upper and lower resilient materials are
positively, respectively retained in said upper and lower channels.
Claim 10 recites that each clamp jaw of the jointed clamp includes
a single transverse rivet that extends through a section of said front end portion of
said channel walls that is closer to said open inner side, and extends through a
forward end section of said inner portion of said block with the result that said block
is positively retained in said channel.
Thus, all the claims under appeal require a single transverse member to extend
through both channel walls and the block of resilient material. However, these limitations
are not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while Fine does teach fastening
a truss 18 to a channel 12 by screws 24 extending through apertures 24 in the side walls
16 of the channel 12, Fine does not teach or suggest using a single transverse member
extending through both side walls 16 of the channel 12 and the truss 18 for fastening the
truss to the channel. To supply this omission in the teachings of the applied prior art, the
examiner made determinations (final rejection, pp. 3-4; answer, pages 4-5) that these
differences would have been obvious to an artisan. However, these determinations have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007