Appeal No. 2005-0540 Page 4
Application No. 09/942,199
under appeal (i.e., claims 1, 6 and 12); and (3) concluded that based on the combined
teachings of Grisley and Pontikas that it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grisley so as
to arrive at the subject matter of claims 1, 6 and 12.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 2-7) that the subject matter of claims 1, 6 and 12
would not have been obvious in view of the Grisley or Pontikas patents, taken singly or
together. With respect to Grisley, the appellant submitted that:
the Grisley patent does not disclose or suggest that ''the first and second flat
members, when joined, lie in the same plane and are disposed at a
predetermined noncollinear angle with respect to each other". The Grisley patent
discloses or suggests right-angled and collinear joints and articles constructed
using such joints which does not produce a frame structure or a flat, coplanar,
frame structure having flat members, that when joined, lie in the same plane and
are disposed at a predetermined noncollinear angle with respect to each other. .
. .
. . .
With regard to the Grisley patent, it is respectfully submitted that none of
the joints disclosed therein have a structure wherein a cavity is formed in a first
flat member that has a depth that extends a predetermined distance below the
first flat surface, and wherein a second flat member has a tab formed therein that
has a thickness that substantially matches the depth of the cavity formed in the
first flat member. In the present invention, the cavity is formed in the first
member that is about one half the thickness of the first member, and the mating,
interlocking tab has a thickness that is about one half the thickness of the second
member so at to fit in the cavity in the first member.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007