Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 10
Application No. 10/651,205
With regard to claims 4, 11, and 12, the appellants argue that the
combination of Rinderer and Harris does not teach or suggest “prongs extending
outwardly from the mounting surfaces.” (Appellants’ Brief, pp. 14-15). We find
that Harris clearly describes conventional pronged attachment elements (3b) at the
ends of its bar hanger (3) and thus shows the claimed prongs extending outwardly
from mounting surfaces of the brace assembly. (Harris, col. 3, lines 42-44 and
Figure 1). As such, the combination of Rinderer and Harris renders the invention
of claims 4, 11, and 12 obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 12.
With regard to claims 13 and 14, the appellants argue that the combination
of Rinderer and Harris does not teach or suggest “flanges extending outwardly and
adapted to be received on a lower surface of the support member.” (Appellants’
Brief, p. 15). For the same reasons provided above with respect to claim 5, we find
that Rinderer discloses flanges extending perpendicularly outwardly and adapted to
be received on a lower surface of the support member. As such, we sustain the
rejection of claims 13 and 14.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, the appellants argue that the combination
of Rinderer and Harris does not teach or suggest “the mounting surfaces extending
from the base at an angle of approximately 94 degrees.” (Appellants’ Brief, p. 15).
For the same reasons provided above with respect to claim 2, we find that it would
have been a matter of obvious engineering choice, in view of the disclosure in
Rinderer of an angle greater than 90 degrees, to have made the angle to be
approximately 94 degrees. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007