Appeal No. 2002-2208 Page 9
Application No. 09/543,989
suggestion of bending the extrusion upwardly and outwardly and then having it snap
back to connect it to the connector, as recited in claim 25 (see brief, page 5).
Appellant’s characterization of the connection method disclosed by Yoder is correct. In
particular, Yoder discloses that
[a]ttachment of the second side 66 [of the plank member 24]
is facilitated by the flexible characteristics of the material
used in forming the plank member 24 permitting the plank
24 to be slightly flexed to permit the lateral member 48 of the
second side 66 to be angularly inserted underneath the
locking tab 58 of the corresponding flange engaging portion
54 [column 4, lines 61-67].
We observe, however, that appellant’s claim 25 is not directed to a method of
assembling an extrusion to a snap connector; rather, claim 25 is directed to an
extrusion having sufficient resiliency that it is capable of bending outwardly and
upwardly about an axis extending through the center of the extrusion when pressed
onto a snap connector and snapping inwardly and downwardly to interlock with the
snap connector. The very same “flexible characteristics of the material used in forming
the plank member 24" which enable the plank member to be flexed as shown in Figure
6 would reasonably appear to likewise enable the plank member to be flexed upwardly
and outwardly in the manner set forth by the examiner on page 6 of the answer.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has provided sufficient factual basis
and technical reasoning to support the position that Yoder’s plank member 24
possesses the resiliency called for in the last paragraph of claim 25 so as to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation under the principles of inherency, thereby shifting the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007