Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
passage of concrete from one vertical cavity to another. We conclude that
Patentee has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 12 and 20 as obvious over Guarriello and Horobin.
3. The Rejection of Claim 29 as Obvious over Guarriello in
view of Horobin ‘382
Patentee claim 29 depends upon claim 15, which in turn depends from
independent claim 11. Independent claim 11 is directed to an insulating
block having projections and recesses on the top and bottom edges of
parallel side members and a joining means interconnecting the side
members. Dependent claim 15 states that the joining means is a web and
dependent claim 29 states that the web is formed separately from the side
panels.
The Examiner found that Guarriello teaches all the limitations of
claim 29 except for the web being formed separately from the side panels.
The Examiner further found that Horobin ‘382 describes a web member that
interconnects side panels and is formed separately from the side panels.
(Appeal Br. at 9). Accordingly, the Examiner found that the difference
between Patentee claim 29 and the prior art is whether it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Horobin’s “web” that
was formed separate from the side panels for that of Guarriello’s. Regarding
this difference, the Examiner stated that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Guarriello and form the side panels
separately to allow for the easy formation of the panels and webs and
facilitate transportation of the structures. (Id. at 10).
At the outset, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
45
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013