Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
projections and recesses being of substantially the same
dimension, wherein said recess of one row is adjacent said
projection of the other row, and wherein said interconnecting
means on said top and bottom edges are offset arranged such
that said recess of one row on said top edge is opposed to said
projection of an opposite row of said bottom edge; whereby
said insulating construction member can be interconnected with
a like member in a bi-directional or reversible manner.
(Appeal Br., Claims Appdx.).
The Examiner has set forth four (4) prior art rejections as well as a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph definiteness and a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph for lack of enablement. The
rejections are as follows:
i) Claims 1-11, 13-19, 21-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as anticipated by Guarriello, U.S. Patent 5,123,222
(“Guarriello”).
ii) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Guarriello in view of Horobin, U.S. Patent 4,894,969 (“Horobin
‘969”).
iii. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Guarriello in view of Horobin ‘969.
iv. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Guarriello in view of Horobin U.S. Patent 4,884,382 (“Horobin
‘382”).
v. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as his invention.
vi. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph,
because the specification does not enable the claimed subject
matter.
Patentee (Phil-Insul) generally contends that the prior art references
fail to describe insulated concrete forms having “projections and recesses
being of substantially the same dimension” and/or “at least two rows of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013