Appeal No. 2005-0540 Page 6
Application No. 09/942,199
single tab" further define over the teachings of the Grisley and Pontikas patents since
these patents teach the use of multiple cavities and tabs.
With regard to independent claim 12, the appellant makes the same argument as
raised with respect to claim 1. In addition, the appellant argues that
the Grisley and Pontikas patents, taken singly or together, do not disclose or
suggest a first flat member that ''comprises a cavity having ... a depth that
extends a first predetermined distance below the first flat surface'', a second flat
member that ''comprises a cavity'' that ''has a depth that extends a second
predetermined distance below the first flat surface'', and ''a third flat member ...
that comprises first and second tabs with outer partially curved contours that
substantially match the respective inner partially curved contours of the first and
second cavities and that fit within the respective first and second cavities, and
wherein the first, second and third flat members, when joined, lie in the same
plane and are disposed at a predetermined noncollinear angles with respect to
each other.''
In our view, the combined teachings of Grisley and Pontikas would have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified Grisley's flat, collinear, coplanar interlocking joint disclosed in the
embodiment shown in Figure 8 to be a flat, noncollinear, coplanar interlocking joint in
view of the following teachings of Grisley and Pontikas. Grisley teaches (column 2,
lines 66-68) various embodiments in which two board ends are joined together to form
an interlocking joint in either a 90° corner joint, a 180° straight in line joint, an obtuse
joint or an acute joint. Pontikas also teaches various embodiments in which two board
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007