Appeal No. 2004-1359
Application No. 09/875,831
The Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to locate the adhesive in and around the opening that receives the supporting
post. (Answer, p. 4).
We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that the adhesive should be placed in the appropriate locations to adhere the
supporting post to the pallet. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that the use of an adhesive on the side of the foot adjacent to the end of the
supporting post would aid in the adhesive bonding of the supporting post to the pallet
frame.
Appellant argues that subparagraph 3 of the claim specifies that the foot diameter is
readily adjustable. (Response, p. 4).
This argument is not persuasive because the argument is not limited to the scope of
the claimed invention. The identified portion of the claim specifies that the supporting
foot comprises “a select number of helical turns selected to provide a diameter size of said
foot as measured by said diameter of said hallow core and one eighth inch multiples of said
helical turns to contribute to establishing surface contact at an interface of said end of said
foot and said edge bounding said pallet circular opening”. In other words, the diameter of
the supporting foot is determined by the size of the opening which receives the supporting
foot. Giasi discloses that the supporting foot is placed, i.e., seated, within the circular
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007