Appeal No. 96-1639
Application 08/269,140
altering by the force of seismic activity. This is consistent with appellant’s specification which
states that the inventive testing method “is analogous to the force of seismic activity.”
Specification at 10, lines 9-12.
Westermo measures at least one dimension of the rectangular area. Column 14, lines 1-
30.
Claim 2 requires that the length of the length altering strut is lengthened. Westermo
discloses that the length may either be shortened (compressed) or lengthened (tensed). Column
11, lines 46-57; column 15, lines 21-31; and column 17, lines 32-38.
Claims 6 requires measuring along the length altering strut. This is disclosed by
Westermo. Column 14, lines 1-30.
CONCLUSION
The examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-13 is not sustained. A new ground of rejection is
entered against Claims 1, 2, and 6 as anticipated by Westermo.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR §
1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct.
10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
provides that, “A new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial
review.”
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007