Appeal No. 2005-1309
Application No. 09/971,505
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 11
as being anticipated by Hooker
Hooker pertains to “[f]olded structures which are
polyhedrons of generally toroidal shape . . . made up of a series
of hinged triangles” (Abstract). For purposes of the appealed
rejections, the examiner focuses on the flat blank illustrated in
Figure 1 and the folded structure derived therefrom shown in
Figures 2 and 2A. As described by Hooker,
[t]he rectangular blank A shown in FIG. 1 has fold
lines 11, 12 and 13 which define six "horizontal" rows
of triangles (the triangles of each row being
designated as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively)
arranged in eighteen "vertical" files. The triangles
of each row have, alternately, a common side (such as
side B2 which is common to two triangles of the second
row) or a common apex (such as point C2 which is common
to two triangles of that second row). Each successive
pair of vertical fold lines 11 defines a vertical file
(of the six triangles) with the common sides (e.g. B2)
and the common apices (e.g. C2) being situated on the
lines 11. The other fold lines 12 and 13 run through
the common apices and constitute the other two sides of
each triangle. All fold lines 11 are parallel to each
other and spaced equally, as are all fold lines 12 and
all fold lines 13.
In the configuration shown in FIGS. 1-24 all the
triangles 2, 3, 4 and 5 are congruent obtuse isosceles
triangles, the angle "D" at the obtuse apex of each
triangle being about 108° (and the other two angles of
the triangle therefore being about 36° each).
. . .
All the vertical fold lines 11 are "infold" lines;
that is, they are to be folded to bring together the
faces of the two triangles of a given row which have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007