Appeal No. 2005-0540 Page 8
Application No. 09/942,199
thickness of its wood piece. Moreover, such is explicitly taught by the flat, collinear,
coplanar interlocking joint disclosed in the embodiment shown in Figure 8 of Grisley.
With regard to independent claim 6, it is our view that the recitations that the first
flat member "comprises a single cavity" and the second flat member "comprises a single
tab" do not restrict the claimed subject matter to only one cavity and only one tab due to
the use of comprising terminology.4 Thus, these recitations do not define over the
teachings of the Grisley and Pontikas patents which teach the use of multiple cavities
and tabs.
With regard to independent claim 12, it is our view that the combined teachings
of Grisley and Pontikas are suggestive of the claimed three flat members in view of the
teaching of Pontikas' Figure 20 which illustrates one corner of a flat, noncollinear,
coplanar interlocking dovetail joint for connecting the edges of a frame. From this
teaching of Pontikas, 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 to form a flat, noncollinear,
coplanar frame, with the frame having interlocking joints as taught by Grisley.
4 The transitional phrase "comprises" is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited
cavities and tabs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007