Appeal No. 2004-0941
Application No. 09/180,901
(column 1, lines 32 through 35) that shaped blocks for building
dry walls or walls without mortar, and for building retaining
walls or revetment walls for stabilizing slopes as protection
against erosion damage or slides are known.
The difficulty we have with the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is that, when we set aside in our minds that which
appellant has taught in the present application, and collectively
assess the applied prior art, we do not discern that one having
ordinary skill in the art would have derived a suggestion
therefrom to use a particular arrangement of rows of the blocks
of Manent to rest against one another to effect a revetment, as
now claimed. Instead, it appears to us that, for example, the
Shindo blocks would have been applied by one having ordinary
skill in the art to fabricate a revetment. Akin to appellant’s
perspective (reply brief, page 1), we do not consider the
referenced statement of Steiner as suggestive that all blocks can
be used for any and every purpose. Thus, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claim 9 based upon the applied prior art
teachings.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007