Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
Patentee’s claims are obvious in light of the prior art. Anderson's-Black
Rock v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57, 61, 163 USPQ 673, 674 (1960)
(combination of old elements that added nothing to the nature and quality of
the product was obvious).
Patentee presented numerous arguments as to how Guarriello’s
insulating blocks differ from that of the claimed subject matter. We address
these arguments in the context of the Board’s obviousness rejection.
i. Patentee Contends that Guarriello does not Describe
Projections and Recesses having Substantially the Same
Dimensions
The difference between Patentee’s projections and those of Guarriello
is that Guarriello desirably employs an L-shaped recess to achieve its bi-
directional interconnectivity. Guarriello’s L-shaped recess has a dimension
of L + 2W where L and W are the length and width of the projection.
Patentee is correct that Guarriello, in achieving its bi-directionality, does not
describe projections and recesses of substantially the same dimensions.
Horobin teaches that the use of square projections and recesses of the
same size was known in the insulating block art. Indeed, Horobin ‘969
describes its square projections and recesses as allowing for lightweight, but
rigid, structures that can be stacked without the need for mortar or any other
binder. (Horobin ‘969, col. 2, ll. 33-44).
While Guarriello does not teach the use of square pegs and holes, the
function and use of square pegs and holes is predictable and their use on
insulating forms does not alter that fact. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in
the art knows that a square peg can fit in a square hole that is of the same
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013