Appeal No. 2005-0340 11
Application No. 10/098,105
art to modify the configuration of Crowley to provide the retaining wall as taught by
Sands.
For the reasons already set forth above in our discussions regarding the Sands
patent, even if the modification urged by the examiner to the unknown support structure
of Crowley were possible, the result would not be the “screwless method” of claim 16, or
the tool-free mounting methods of independent claims 23, 32 and 41. In particular, we
again find that consistent with appellants’ specification one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellants’ invention would not have equated the screw/bolt secured panel
(119) of Sands with the latchable panel, latchable wall section or tool-free releasable
wall/wall section set forth in the claims on appeal. In that regard, we again share
appellants’ position that by equating “latchable” with a bolt or screw, the examiner has
provided a definition that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning understood by those
of ordinary skill in the art and which has neither a basis in common usage by an artisan
nor a basis in the present application.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner‘s rejection of claims 16
through 31 and 41 through 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Crowley in view of Sands.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007