Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 9
Application No. 10/651,205
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 4). The examiner found,
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made to have made the brace
assembly shown by Rinderer with telescopic brace
members and the mounting surface with prongs to
facilitate the use of the device. The telescopic brace
members would permit easier storage, transportation,
handling and more versatility of the brace member (since
it can adjust its length to different distance between the
supports). (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4).
The appellants rely on their argument that Rinderer fails to disclose or
suggest a compression fit between the first mounting surface and the support, and
they argue that Harris fails to cure this deficiency. (Appellants’ Brief, pp. 13-14).2
We have found that Rinderer inherently discloses providing a compression fit, and
we thus sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 29 for the same reasons provided
above for claim 1.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, the appellants argue that the combination of
Rinderer and Harris does not teach or suggest “the fastener holes in the mounting
surfaces.” (Appellants’ Brief, p. 14) For the same reasons provided above with
respect to claim 3, we find that Rinderer discloses fastener holes in the mounting
surfaces. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10.
2 The appellants note that, like claim 1, independent claim 8 also recites a first mounting surface
being adapted to create a compression fit by contacting a first support member when installed,
and independent claim 29 similarly recites a first mounting surface substantially engaging the
first support member when installed to create a compression fit therebetween.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007