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