Appeal No. 2005-0540 Page 7
Application No. 09/942,199
ends are joined together to form an interlocking joint. Figures 18-19 of Pontikas
disclose a dovetail 90° corner joint.2 Figure 20 of Pontikas discloses a flat, noncollinear,
coplanar interlocking dovetail joint for connecting the edges of a frame. Figure 15 of
Pontikas discloses an angled box joint made from three flat members.
We find the appellant's arguments for patentability unpersuasive for the reasons
set forth by the examiner in the answer (pp. 5-8).3 While the appellant may be correct,
that neither Grisley or Pontikas teach (i.e., anticipate) the entire subject matter of claims
1, 6 and 12, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regard to the appellant's argument that here 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, we note, as did
the examiner, the claims do not specifically recite that the protrusion is a portion of the
2 But for the construction of the interlocking joint, Pontikas' 90° corner joint is similar to the 90°
corner joints shown in Figures 4-7 of Grisley.
3 On page 9 of the answer, the examiner refers to a reference of record that has not been applied
in the rejection under appeal. This reference has been given no consideration since it was not included in
the rejection under appeal. See Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007