Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
Are Patentee’s claimed projections and recesses a predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
function?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Patentee’s ‘933 Patent Specification and Claims
1) Patentee’s claims on appeal are directed to insulating construction
members and blocks having at least two rows of alternating projections and
recesses where the projections and recesses are substantially the same
dimensions. (Appeal Br., Independent claims 1, 11, 17, 18, 19 and 30).
2) The ‘933 patent acknowledges that it was known in the prior art to
interlock foamed concrete forms using tongue projections and groove
recesses. (‘933, col. 1, ll. 15-25).
3) The ‘933 patent states that its insulating bidirectional and reversible
blocks do not have to be interconnected in “only one right way.” (Id. at col.
3, ll. 46-53).
4) The ‘933 patent states that it is easier to interconnect blocks that are
capable of being connected in a bidirectional and/or reversible manner. (Id.
at col. 1, ll. 34-43 and col. 3, ll. 53-57).
5) ‘933 patent Figure 1, depicted below, depicts an insulating
construction block that is said to represent a preferred embodiment of the
‘933 patent:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013