Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 7
Application No. 10/651,205
Rinderer discloses a flange (53) that extends perpendicularly outwardly from
the mounting surface (51) and is adapted to be received on a lower surface of
support (S). (Rinderer, col. 4, lines 29-36 and Figure 2). As such, we hold that
Rinderer anticipates claim 5.
Dependent claim 7 recites a second mounting surface that extends from a
second end of the brace member and forms an angle greater than 90 degrees with
the base and is adapted to create a compression fit with a support member when
installed. Figure 2 of Rinderer clearly shows two mounting surfaces (51), one on
either end of brace member (21). Further, for the same reasons discussed for claim
1, Rinderer inherently discloses that the second mounting surface provides a
compression fit with the support (S) when installed. As such, we hold that
Rinderer anticipates claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 3, 5, 7 as being anticipated by Rinderer.
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the angle between the
first mounting surface and the base is approximately 94 degrees. The examiner has
determined that this claim is obvious in view of Rinderer because Rinderer clearly
shows an angle greater than 90 degrees and to make the angle at approximately 94
degrees is an obvious matter of engineering choice. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 3).
The appellants rely on their argument for patentability of claim 1, urging that claim
2 is patentable, because Rinderer does not show providing a compression fit.
(Appellants’ Brief, p. 14). The appellants further argue that claim 2 is not
anticipated or rendered obvious by Rinderer because it recites an angle of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007