*1 the- states Fig. a full tenon. Davison “T-shaped 4 above. panels, as shown locking tenon is'- or full rib” Fig. apparently 4 are panels shown the board the inner face g., “formed on or (e. wood material non-metallic point thereof”. edge at medial members fibreboard), to which each members appealed secured. claims were All margins tenons or half outturned in* have Harman jected adjacent pairs in engageable by slidably We have' of London and Davison. view flange mar- arguments- formed the mortises carefully all the considered clearly gins. above shown As and! pro appellant’s se brief advanced attaching figure, base of an argument by coun- oral advanced at those beyond laterally member extends reviewed have also sel on behalf. We flange and abuts mortise of the opinions and Examiner margin there- outer face of the inturned light of these Board of arguments. H-section “such of. Harman states that adopt as and with We girders struc- robust frame II from a following opinion from statement our joint H-sec- formed ture”. opinion Appeals: of the Board successively girder repeated “ tion can be * * * are convinced equal hollow wall. at intervals for a teaching di- of Harman would panels “are that his Harman states persons ordinary skill rect interchangeable wholly main or relationship fitted to a another”. with one parts abut- the illustrated facing panels held studding panel London shows two ment between the together by en- key parts. slidable carried gageable 53, on the 49, 52, 11, 18, 25, 32, with dovetailed tenons key panels. side of Arms on one over the- 58 and 59 as as; on the other applied member and alternate arms for reasons references edges side inturned collec- Examiner is af- advanced tively opposite constitute mortises on firmed.” key sides of slidable Lon- member. Affirmed. key don members and indicates that “may tenons as true associated function members, load-supporting or columns spacing appropri- thereof ately selected, desired, respect if ceiling
to the beams of or roof struc- words,
ture.” may In other such elements role of conventional
assume the having spacing. equal another studs 50 CCPA Application of Harold E. KALTER. lap- embodiment, London also shows the Appeal parting ping panels respect No. 6916. Patent facing panels, parallel line for two States Court Customs United staggering expressly prefers such Appeals. and Patent species The inter- of his invention. April stringers panel illus- mediate on each spaced equally trated centers. precast concrete weath- Davison shows
er boards inturned half tenons
at their intermedi- vertical tenon, snugly interfitted with
ate all full As in
the mortises of concrete studs. disclosure, half tenons two edge-abutting pan- parting
at the line cooperate to form boards
els or weather *2 portions
peripheral of an outer flexible cover, which cover is secured upturned peripheral portion of the frame. improvement providing is described edge plas- a beaded aon flexible of cover tic or the like. Two Smith, Judges, embodiments are described dissented.
Rich edge specification. each, In beaded complementary adapted to chan- fit into a downwardly first, nel. In the extend- edge peripheral cover of the flexible provided thick- with a bead such “wedgingly” an ness as to seat within upturned frame. channel of saddle bead channel over the enclose it. has been This embodiment “Fig. species.” called second consists embodiment frame as saddle bead by tightly rolling portion of the a small downwardly the frame. directed pad Then the it, tightly or cushion under fitted inwardly means an turn- adapted complementarily channel fit ed form, frame. exposed completely the cover all encases metallic saddle This areas of the frame. “Fig. 5 embodiment has species.” been called Bradford, Washington, Richard D. H. C., Slough Slough, Frank M. and J. Helen Cleveland, Ohio, appellant. claims read: cycle comprising A “8. saddle Moore, Washington, Clarence D. C. W. shaped sheet saddle C., (Jere Sears, Washington, D. W. complementarily member and counsel), for Com’r of Patents. shaped cover there- member flexible WORLEY, Judge, Chief Before being pro- for, said flexible member ALMOND, RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and downwardly depending vided with a Judges. Associate peripheral portion, skirt said skirt portion provided a bead- Judge. ALMOND, portion, the frame member ed peri- a channel appeal from This is an the decision adapted engage phery affirming Appeals Board of exam- edge portion locking- said ap- iner’s ly secure said and cover mem- application1 as pellant’s together. bers According comprising specification, “9. A saddle the in- improvement metal frame relates to saddle sheet vention complementarily shap- member and a prior which frame therefor, peri- cover member generally pear-shaped form flexible has its having wedge upwardly said flexible receive the pheral bent “Cycle 18, 1958, 755,468, August Covers.” Ser. No. filed therewith, tautly member is integrally formed means secured having integrally frame member.” said frame formed wedgingly engaging said means for The Board relied on the whereby following said cover references: *3 351,034 June 1931. (Great Britain) Bagusat 510,368 January 21, et al. (Italy) turns, the the board found soft cushion The and acceleration or cycle. and over deceleration of claim the The flexible Bagusat et cover complementarily over is fitted claim 9 They upwardly to be drawn claim 8 rounded corner al. considered of the turned exposed frame portions wherein member so to the first embodiment that all frame is over the bead encased. drawn cover claim 9 to flexible be appellant takes issue with the find wherein second embodiment examiner, by concurred bead formed in fits board, that Mellano discloses a “flexible metal frame. member provided with down a wardly peripheral portion” skirt with a The Mellano discloses a edge, having “the frame members comprising flexible a cover may shaped a periphery adapt channel outer rubber, a be fitted over of moulded engage ed wedgingly to said beaded number of frame member. A embodi- * * * lockingly to secure the illustrated, frame per- ments are the one here together.” and cover The solicitor as upon being that tinent and relied below serts that is immaterial whether or which the flexible has “beaded ** * not “wedgingly Mellano’s cover bead is downwardly and ends turned * * engaged” wholly as the “final functional by plates clamping *.” secured clause of the claim 8 could be viewed clamping plates secured to as a structural obvious, difference.” It is frame countersunk screws and form however, that the clamps function of the complementary shape to channel provide of Mellano is to the channel to extending periphery downwardly of the compress or crowd the cover beads there throughout the cover member front in. “wedg This would seem to meet the portions pre- rear the seat. Mellano ingly engage” requirement of the claim. side seat to free fers the be unsupported by frame, seem It would obvious that Mellano recognized possibility “* employing does frame disclose with “a channel * * * * * outer side periphery.” shaped outer While not de- rigid complete to form or non-exten- scribing perimeter boundary or full * * sive frame, clamps channel would periphery constitute the gages which en- Bagusat et al. reference illustrates cover. comprising saddle a sheet metal member, cushion, saddle question no There “saddle a flexible member,” cover therefor. The sides sheet metal frame call- upwardly of the frame are bent on each ed for in claim conventional in prevent displacement Appellant specifi- side lateral so art. admits
2. Webster’s Third New pack cram International or into Dic- smaller * * p. tionary, space; 2591: restricted crowd * ** * * * “2. vt 4: gave suggestion appellant no According specification,
cation. presenting nor amendment claim 9 metal saddle the sheet the cover fits proceedings action ex- before manner as in the in the same here aminer securing the or the board that novel feature is Figure “wedging” should not be read species. Nothing a bead- cover to the im- in the record indicates edge portion. “plastic intend- which embodiment claim 9 was provement flexible encompass. ed to a beaded member with or like” upturned engage channel adapted It seems clear to us that claim 9 does obvious would member not read on the embodiment illustrated *4 Mel- of ordinary in in the art view Fig skill species 5, yet in it on the does read Fig. lano. Fig. species of not 5 does 4. The of having wedge “flexible economy in of on the basis Predicated integrally means as formed therewith” ap- assembly, manufacture of cost appear required claim 9. The advantage for pellant distinctive asserts to the define same embodiment differ clamp- in that his structure over only scope. in to are constrained We securing are elim- bolts means and agree appellant with that claim 9 is the omission is that inated. It obvious rejected Bagusat properly al., et since on required claim means is not of these the bearing fails to the cover show Nothing precludes the in the claim as called for clamps and as a substitute use bolts of claims. securing crimped for the might recognizes that solicitor drawing. appellant’s in We shown readability claim the “doubt the 9 on Board of statement: the with Figure species” 5 but that claim contends “Further, opinion, method in the our Mellano, stating: 9 is over groove assembly anis of the bead “ * ** choice immaterial Assuming arguendo matter of obvious that appealed claims.” appellant’s claim 9 assertion [that Fig. species] 4 reads is cor- on the being unpat- rejected was as Claim 9 showing rect and a thereof had been largely Bagusat al., on et entable seasonably made, quite then it “wedge definition of loose the basis would have obvious the examiner the cover the saddle means.” Since simply grouped with claim 8 claim 9 entirely Bagusat the ex- et encases al. in Mellano, as like posed frame and cushion somewhat claim.” 9 broader perceive it slip is difficult a “wedge with which means” argument Appealing this engaged. that The board held be, rejection of claim 9 based on Mel ‘wedging- Bagusat frame member “the Only lano is not claim 8 was before us. engaging’ means of cov- ly rejected on Mellano. are without au Fig. appellant’s inas in the same sense er grounds thority rejec advance new Figure 5 the second em- illustrates 5.” deciding tion, but are limited to the is in described above which bodiment us. sues before the bead on frame. encases ground Appellant points out that rejection by that the examiner affirm- Appellant contends claim 9 does “solely Figure only species 5 the board is based on two ance foreign on not read patent” species where the cover bead is letters citation of on 4). deprecation (Fig. patents. of such the frame channel decisions Bagusat Moreton, rejection re et it 288 F.2d al. seems As was stated In re- “A and the board CCPA consideration that the clear type argu- assumption that this that claim 9 was cases will show lied Figure not borne fruit on the ment has court be read intended years.” past species. states The solicitor engages “in- means that to be opinion both our It efficacy tegrally These prior formed” frame. Bagusat on the bear et al. though differences, however, Bagusat al., are irrelevant However, et patentability references, pro- reference, as I fails valid teaching relied read them. was which vide upon. “cycle I cannot in Mellano cover” find or, reasons, accurately, foregoing more seat cover in For the Appeals is modi sense which claims use decision of the Board ordinary that term or in sense of fied to the extent that away rejection of term. from Mellano what Take is affirmed and the claim 8 calling the court is there “cover” and claim is reversed. is no seat there to be covered. Mellano Modified. does not call the element the court relies sup- on a “cover.” He calls it a “rubber SMITH, RICH, Judge, with whom port,” it is. joins Judge, (dissenting). There is here in structure of respectfully dissent with I must *5 relationship” functional rejection “new spect of the to the affirmance which, prior Act, was a rec- 1952 why the to me of claim is not clear 8. It ognized presence patenta- Roberts, for test affirming rejection. majority is “invention,” developed as ble clearly 8, judgment, my dis- Claim in “Patentability Interpreta- and Patent anything tinguishes patentably dis- from I, tion,” p. Vol. 33: suggested by closed in or which, except the fact that for “A invention the do- new within seats, cycle quite far main of deals industrial created being claimed. from .afield whenever there is established new what a relationship functional between spite the fact required which are for the factors “Cycle Covers,” application is entitled rendering practically such invention a is not is described and claimed what words, operative; or in other when- comprising, as seat cover but any of the factors ever constituent clearly indicate, combination the claims belonging an in- of an invention way. particular related of elements functionally art, related dustrial sheet-metal are the The basic elements other in novel mode.” each saddle-shaped, frame, and the which is relationship for is a cover the frame. is in- which functional new Such but the sheet- is not seat of the unobviousness The cover dicative change so “frame” is and function would metal made over the The invention the cover. even without only feature find in Mellano I can merely putting a is not here applicant’s is relevant to claimed which suggest- way, nowhere is new cover but is the bead on the flexible structure securing references, support, it is a bead on the rubber together. The essence seat is stretched rubber concept way is the of a this new spaced-apart front and rear two between wedging relationship between provide a re- in order members peripheral There and the channel. suspension the rider. There is for silient relationship. functional new is a metal frame” as sheet no “saddle claims, to covered for called 8 and 9 are but two diffierent Claims cover. rubber Mellano’s a flexible definitions same embodiment. with trampoline. seat, like a calling stretched claim in 9 is broader than Claim nothing. He has “wedge practically no covers means” on the cover instead It saddle-shaped edge.” sheet-metal with But claim is of a “beaded periphery” as call- requiring “channel than in not broader “integrally- rejection of with the cannot or with I in claim ed for engaging examiner, accepted by board without formed. accepted discussion, specified apparently wedge means,” also as said opinion. rejection clamps opposite court’s He clearly clamps bolted, as for reversal claim calls rubber seat stretched strap-like of claim 9. And should wedged, to curved proceedings” which, in “further rear front and is, opinion, my claim it provide no consider rubber, would absence of Mellano as claim 8. clear met- neither sheet seat whatever saddle-shaped, “wedging” common within the nor has en- al no Since ap- gagement, meaning fail to see what makes the as used I of those words subject specification. obvious. claimed matter plicant’s claims