Appeal No. 2001-2378
Application No. 09/479,932
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include
all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend.
Appellants’ invention pertains to a structure for
supporting a rail. Independent claims 1, 12 and 14, copies of
which are found in the appendix to appellants’ main brief, are
illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
The sole reference applied in the final rejection is:
Meier et al. (Meier) 5,361,986 Nov. 8,
1994
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Meier.1
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meier.
Appellants’ Invention
With reference to Figure 2, the appealed claims are
directed to a “superstructure arrangement for a track”
comprising, generally, a sleeper 10, a securing device 16
fastened to the sleeper, a rail 20 having a maximum
1In the answer (page 3), the examiner inadvertently
included canceled claim 13 in the statement of this rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007