Appeal No. 2006-1296 Page 5
Application No. 10/759,873
obtuse angle substantially greater than 90o as called for in appellant’s claims. The examiner
relies on Rebentisch for such a suggestion.
Rebentisch describes a nut 10 for a channeled structural member, the nut having two
parallel sharp edges 24 for engaging flanges 26 of the channeled structural member by gripping
or biting into the flanges. The sharp edges 24 provide an improved gripping power preventing
slipping of the nut 10 and the bolt 22 under load. Rebentisch provides no teaching with regard to
securement arrangements for web joist beams comprising two angle elements and thus would
have provided no suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the engagement plate of
the AAPA arrangement. Further, the modes of securement in the AAPA and Koyama
arrangements are so vastly different from the biting gripping securement taught by Rebentisch
that one skilled in the art would not have looked to the teachings of the Rebentisch nut to modify
the engagement plate of the AAPA arrangement.
In light of the above, the rejection of claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable over AAPA in
view of Koyama and Rebentisch cannot be sustained. Inasmuch as the examiner’s application of
Steinke provides no cure for the deficiency of the combination discussed above, it follows that
the rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Koyama, Rebentisch and
Steinke also cannot be sustained.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
The term "substantially" is a term of degree. When a word of degree is used, such as the
term "substantially" in claim 1, it is necessary to determine whether the specification provides
some standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007