Appeal No. 2005-0664 Page 6
Application No. 09/840,278
tenons “to provide a connection between the end of the spacer and the wall it is
connected to that is stronger and can better resist forces normal to spacer” (answer,
page 5) in view of the dovetail recess and tab engagement arrangement taught by
Spencer. Takama’s partition boards 2 and sub-partition boards 3 have first and second
end sections (the tenons) which have larger cross sections than the middle sections
thereof but lack “recessed portions in an end face thereof” as required by claim 10.
Simply stated, we find absolutely no suggestion in Spencer to add recesses in the end
face of the dovetail tenons of Takama’s partition boards 2 or sub-partition boards 3.
The dovetail tenons 22, 32 of Takama appear to be sufficiently securely received in
dovetail tenons 11 or 21 without the need for recesses in the end faces of the tenons.
Both Takama and Spencer simply teach dovetail groove and dovetail tenon mating
arrangements and neither teaches providing recesses in the tenons.
Daneshvar is applied by the examiner merely for its teaching of providing a cover
for a container and provides no cure for the deficiency of Takama and Spencer
addressed above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 16 as being
unpatentable over Takama in view of Spencer and Daneshvar cannot be sustained.
Further, the examiner’s application of Ratcliff in rejecting claims 12 and 13, which
depend from claim 10, fails to overcome the deficiency in the combination of Takama in
view of Spencer and Daneshvar. It thus follows that the rejection of claims 12 and 13
as being unpatentable over Takama in view of Spencer, Daneshvar and Ratcliff also
cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007