Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”).
As to Patentee claim 29, the Examiner has demonstrated that Patentee
has substituted one known element for another to obtain a predictable result.
In particular, the Examiner has established that Horobin teaches one skilled
in the art how to make and use webs formed separately from the side panels.
The Examiner has also established that the use of Horobin’s web in the
insulating form of Guarriello involves a simple substitution of one known
element, a web formed separately from the side panels, for another known
element, a web not formed separately from the side panels. The Examiner
further established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that the substitution of Horobin’s web for that of Guarriello
would improve upon the teachings of Guarriello, namely that it would
facilitate transportation of the insulating blocks. Patentee has failed to
demonstrate that these findings were made in error. We conclude that
Patentee has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
29 over the cited Guarriello and Horobin.
C. The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112
1. Rejection of Claim 30 as Indefinite
Independent claim 30 is directed to an insulating construction block
having rectangular projections and recesses. The projections and recesses
comprise opposed walls parallel to the longitudinal direction and opposed
walls perpendicular to the longitudinal direction. The opposed walls
perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of at least one projection define
47
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013