Appeal No. 2005-2175
Application 10/104,383
Indeed, the common method of formation by extrusion and the common core and cover structure
would have reasonably suggested the combination of Pollock and Nelson to this person. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
We agree with appellants that the manner in which the planks of col. 12 and FIG. 17 of
Pollock and the manner in which the articles of Nelson are attached to each other and to support
substrate in constructing flooring, whether for a deck or other structure, would have been
considered by one of ordinary skill in this art with respect to combining Pollock with Haid and
combining Nelson with Haid. We found above that Pollock did not disclose any particular
manner of securing the planks to a support substrate in constructing the flooring of a deck
structure, teaching that the planks disclosed therein can be “installed in a manner similar to
conventional lumber deck planks,” including side-by-side installation. We know of no authority,
building code regulations or otherwise, which specifies that deck planks must always be secured
to a substrate separated by a “gap” in addition to that formed by the shape of the sides of the
planks, and appellants have cited no such authority. Indeed, we take notice that it is common
practice to attach deck planks to each other to prevent liquids and solids from falling through a
“gap,” see, e.g., col. 10, ll. 3-6, of Pollock, and the flooring of a deck is often graded to control
drainage in a particular direction. We find no teaching in Pollock which requires that the planks
of col. 12 and FIG. 17 thereof must be installed otherwise.
Thus, we determine that one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been
motivated to join the planks of col. 12 and FIG. 17 of Pollock buy forming a groove in each side
to accept the T-shaped molding as taught by Haid in the reasonable expectation of attaching the
planks to each other, the manner in which the so attached planks are secured to support substrate
in constructing flooring, whether on for a deck or other structure, notwithstanding.
Furthermore, we recognize that, as pointed out by appellants, Nelson would have taught
one of ordinary skill in the art that the invention therein involves a modified tongue and groove
arrangement for constructing flooring as an alternative to the well known tongue and groove
arrangement for the same purpose acknowledge by Nelson at cols. 1 and 2 and in FIGs. 1 and 2.
We find that Haid would have taught this person a similar arrangement wherein the tongue is
replaced with a groove and the function of the tongue is provided by the T-shaped molding. We
agree with appellants that the modification of Nelson by replacing the tongue and groove in the
- 14 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007