Appeal No. 2002-2208 Page 3
Application No. 09/543,989
(Paper No. 9) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 7 and 10) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant has elected to group all claims together (brief, page 3). Thus, in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we shall decide the appeal of each of the
rejections on the basis of independent claim 25, with the remainder of the claims so
rejected standing or falling with representative claim 25. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199
USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Turning first to the rejection of claims 25-27 as being anticipated by Pollock, we
direct our attention to the embodiments of Figures 14 and 15, the embodiments relied
upon by the examiner in rejecting the claims. Pollock discloses a deck plank 1 made of
extruded synthetic resin, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). A cover 7 made of “rigid”
PVC (column 5, lines 34-35) is snapped over a plank member 5A or 5B. Pollock’s
plank member responds to the structure recited in claim 25 as follows: the plank
member comprises a pair of outer leg members (side flanges 13aN, 13bN or 13Ba,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007