Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
consider Coffey’s structure as rendering the
plates incapable of being disassembled from the framework when
the wheel units are connected thereto, as called for in each
of independent claims 1, 18 and 30.
Alternatively, if the examiner intends to read the
claimed panel units on Coffey’s plates 18 and beams 15, 16
collectively, the rejection is fundamentally flawed for
several reasons. First, claims 1, 18 and 30 require the panel
units to be “pie-shaped,” which plates 18 and beams 15, 16,
taken together, clearly are not. Second, claims 1, 18 and 30
require the panel units to be disposed between an adjacent
pair of panel units, which plates 18 and beams 15, 16, taken
together, clearly are not. Third, claims 1, 18 and 30 require
the panel units to be separated from adjacent panel units
along radial lines of separation, which plates 18 and beams
15, 16, taken together, clearly are not. For at least these
reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 18 and 30 as being
anticipated by Coffey based on this alternative interpretation
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007