Ex Parte Rogers - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-0514                                                                             
                Application 10/394,641                                                                       
                apart (id., p. 8, para. 3).  However, the Examiner is of the opinion that the                
                "material interference" holding the joint together with the contacting                       
                surfaces of the overlapping lips reads on the separate devices described by                  
                Seaux (Answer, p. 8, para. 1).  The Examiner explicitly identifies "figure 10                
                number 90" in Seaux as describing "an integral design feature joint, in which                
                the joint is held together by material interference with the contacting                      
                surfaces of the overlapping lips" (id., p. 4, para. 1).                                      
                      According to Appellant's specification (p. 10, ll. 10-16),                             
                            [t]here are many well known means to assemble                                    
                            composite components such as composite integral                                  
                            fit joints, snap fit joints and integral design feature                          
                            joints in which the joint is held together by                                    
                            material interference with the contacting surfaces.                              
                            For example, the overlapping lips can be                                         
                            interlocked [sic, via] a mortise and tenon joint.                                
                            Alternatively and additionally, the mat's                                        
                            overlapping lips can be secured together by any                                  
                            type of fastening device, stakes, bolts, screws,                                 
                            pins, clamps, peg or external fastening means.                                   
                      The Examiner's interpretation of "material interference" is                            
                inconsistent with Appellant's specification.  According to Appellant's                       
                specification, "material interference" is not an external or separate device.                
                External or separate fastening devices, such as the pegs illustrated in Seaux                
                "figure 10 number 90," are expressly described in Appellant's specification                  
                as alternative and addition to material interference joints.  Finally, a peg is              
                not a joint and, therefore, the Examiner has failed to explain where Seaux                   
                describes a mat having an integral design feature joint as claimed.                          
                Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 2 under                 
                § 102(e) as anticipated by Seaux.                                                            


                                                     8                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013