Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
272. We conclude that Guarriello does not describe insulating forms having
projections and recesses having substantially the same dimensions. On the
record before us, it follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11,
13-19, 21-28 and 30 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Guarriello.
Horobin ‘969 teaches that insulating blocks having projections and
recesses of the same dimensions were known in the art to provide a suitable
means of interlocking the blocks without the need for mortar or binder.
(Horobin ‘969, col. 2, ll. 40-44). Accordingly, a new ground of rejection
based upon obviousness is made below.
2. New Grounds of Rejection as to Claims 1-11, 13-19, 21-
28 as Obvious over Guarriello and Horobin ‘969 and/or
Horobin ‘382
Patentee’s claims are directed to insulating blocks and members that
have specifically claimed projections and recesses on their surfaces to allow
the blocks and members to be interlocked in a bi-directional or reversible
manner. As discussed below, the individual elements recited in Patentee’s
claims represent a combination of familiar elements according to known
methods that yields predictable results.
Patentee’s claimed insulating block and member elements were
known in the prior art. Guarriello and Horobin describe insulating blocks
for use in the construction of concrete walls. (Guarriello and Horobin ‘969
and ‘382, Abstracts). Guarriello states that its blocks are made of a foam
material and Horobin states that its blocks are made from expandable
styrene. (Guarriello Abstract, Horobin ‘969 Abstract, Horobin ‘382, col. 2,
ll. 16-21.). Guarriello and Horobin’s blocks have opposed side walls, the
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013