Appeal No. 2006-1296 Page 4
Application No. 10/759,873
type double patenting rejection, we interpret the language “an obtuse angle substantially greater
than 90o” as used in claim 1 on appeal to be any obtuse angle, as obtuse angles are by definition
angles greater than 90o and less than 180o and as appellant’s specification provides no more
specific definition of this obtuse angle.
With the above definition in mind, we find that the recitation of the “obtuse angle” in
claim 2 of the Kirschner patent would have suggested “an obtuse angle substantially greater than
90o” and, consequently, conclude that the subject matter of claims 1-3 would have been obvious
in view of claims 2, 3 and 2, respectively, of the Kirschner patent.1 The obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1-3 is thus sustained.
The rejections of claims 1 and 2 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Koyoma
and Rebentisch and claim 3 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Koyoma, Rebentisch
and Steinke, on the other hand, are not sustained. As more fully explained below, we find no
suggestion in any of Koyoma, Rebentisch and Steinke to modify the AAPA arrangement to
provide the engagement plate with upstanding portions being at an obtuse angle to the flat
anchor portion.
The AAPA relied upon by the examiner includes an arrangement including a steel web
joint beam with two angle elements, an anchor plate, an engagement plate and a stud essentially
as recited in appellant’s claims, wherein the anchor plate and engagement plate comprise square
washers as illustrated on the page of the AFCON Flyer included with the IDS appended to the
answer. Such washers lack the upstanding engagement portions called for in appellant’s claims.
Even assuming that Koyama would have provided suggestion to modify the AAPA
arrangement to provide upstanding engagement portions on the engagement plate, the examiner
concedes that Koyama provides no teaching or suggestion of engagement portions being at an
1 The examiner’s application of Rebentisch is superfluous to this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007