Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
proposed reference combination stems from impermissible
hindsight.
The related argument (bolstered by the publication appended
to the main brief) that an arch structure having the curved beam
column stiffeners recited in claim 1 (i.e., the enclosed
cavities, concrete fillings and shear bond connectors) embodies
surprising and unexpected resistance to various stresses and
forces so as to “permit greatly increased spans for the arch
structures and novel clearance envelopes for the arch structures
which are very significant compared to the prior art” (main
brief, page 4) is also unpersuasive. To begin with, claim 1 does
not specify any particular span length or a novel clearance
envelope. Thus, this line of argument is not commensurate with
the relatively broad scope of the claim. Moreover, given the
fair teachings of the applied prior art with respect to the
strengthening, stiffening and force-resisting properties of
concrete fillings and shear bond connectors, it is neither
surprising nor unexpected that curved beam column stiffeners of
the type recited in claim 1 would impart increased strength to an
arch structure.
In light of the foregoing, the combined teachings of Wilson,
Gurtner, Sivachenko and Sattler justify the examiner’s conclusion
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007