Ex Parte Anvick - Page 5




               Appeal No. 2005-0540                                                                     Page 5                  
               Application No. 09/942,199                                                                                       



                      With respect to Pontikas, the appellant 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 flrst flat member.  The only joint structures relating to the formation of planar                     
                      structures (shown in Fig. 20) uses a plurality of dovetail joints wherein the                             
                      protrusions and cutouts are the entire thickness of the respective wood pieces.                           
                      There is no disclosure or suggestion in the Grisley patent regarding the use of                           
                      interlocking joints wherein the indents and protrusions are a portion of the                              
                      thickness of the respective wood pieces, as is employed in the present invention.                         


                      The appellant then concludes that with specific regard to independent claim 1,                            
               that:                                                                                                            
                      the Grisley and Pontikas patents, taken singly or together, do not disclose or                            
                      suggest ajoint system comprising ''a cavity formed in the first flat member . . . that                    
                      has a depth that extends a predetennined distance below the first flat surface,                           
                      and wherein the depth of the cavity is a predetermined portion of the thickness of                        
                      the flrst flat member'' and ''a second flat member ... having a tab ... that ... fits                     
                      within the cavity, which tab has a thickness that substantially matches the depth                         
                      of the cavity formed in the first flat member.'' [Emphasis in original]  Thus, in the                     
                      invention recited in claim 1, the tab and the cavity have a thickness and depth                           
                      that are a portion of the overall thickness of the first and second flat members.                         
                      This is not the case with the joints disclosed in the Grisley and Pontikas patents.                       


                      With regard to independent claim 6, the appellant makes the same argument as                              
               raised with respect to claim 1.  In addition, the appellant argues that the recitations that                     
               first flat member "comprises a single cavity" and the second flat member "comprises a                            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007