Appeal No. 2001-2378
Application No. 09/479,932
Meier does not provide an adequate factual basis to establish
that the natural result flowing from following the teachings
of that reference would result in the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14-17.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meier, the examiner taking the position that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have substituted a known rail for the rail of Meier. Even
if true, the above discussed requirement of claim 1, from
which claim 7 depends, concerning the relationship between the
maximum permissible stress of the rail and the rigidity of the
intermediate layer would not necessarily result, and there is
no suggestion or teaching in Meier that would have suggested
the claimed relationship. Thus, the § 103 rejection of claim
7 based on Meier also is not sustainable.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007