Appeal No. 2004-1274
Application 09/951,616
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.”
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
The Examiner states that Castle teaches all limitations of
claim 1 except “a formed groove having the appearance of a mortar
reveal.” See page 2 of the Examiner’s final rejection on May 9,
2003 (hereinafter “final”). The Examiner further states that
Koenig teaches the groove having the appearance of a mortar reveal.
See page 3 of the final.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Castle and Koenig teaches all limitations of claim
1. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the coping
assembly art would not look to the wall board installation art
because coping assemblies deal with protecting a roof wall from
the harsh elements of outside environment, which is not a design
consideration for wall boards used in environmentally controlled
interior rooms. See last paragraph on page 11 of the brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007