Appeal No. 1998-0784 Page 4
Application No. 07/949,567
First, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has misinterpreted “longitudinal” as
used in the claim (Reply Brief, page 1). In the Brief at page 3, Appellant reproduces a sketch of a
prior art base plate with metal profiles on the frontal sides of wood planks as was known in the
prior art. The location of the metal profiles is shown on the short or width dimension of the
rectangular base plate. In the Answer, the Examiner states that the sketch presented in the Brief
accurately depicts reinforcing rails on two of the longitudinal ends (Answer, page 4).
The frontal edges as depicted in the Brief are not longitudinal edges. As pointed out by
Appellant, “longitudinal” is defined as “1: placed or running lengthwise 2: of or relating to length
or the lengthwise dimension” (Reply Brief, page 1, quoting Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, 10th Ed. 1996). In order for the planar support body to have “longitudinal edges”, the
body must have a lengthwise dimension and a widthwise dimension. The lengthwise dimension
must necessarily be the longer dimension. The rails must be located on the long edge. Location
of the rails on the widthwise dimension or short edge as shown in Appellant’s sketch of the prior
art does results in a base plate which is different than that claimed.
We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to present any basis to believe
that base plates having longitudinal rails were known in the prior art (Brief, pages 3-4). As
discussed above, the admitted prior art suggests a metal profile on the frontal sides and Appellant
has established, without dispute by the Examiner, that such frontal sides were conventionally
shorter than the edges running perpendicular to the frontal sides. Neither Matsuo nor the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007