Appeal No. 2006-0937
Application No. 10/367,289
impact bar 11. Thus, the absence of any discussion regarding
these other components simply is not relevant to the propriety of
the examiner’s rejection.
The appellant additionally argues, “[a]ssuming arguendo that
components 11a and 11b of the Odan et al patent have a cross
section which is catenary in configuration, neither of these
components define a central portion disposed between two flanks,
as expressly recited in appealed independent Claim 1.”
(Supplemental reply brief, filed November 16, 2005, pages 2-3).
This is incorrect. In the supplemental answer mailed October 31,
2005, the examiner has fully explained (on page 4 with reference
to an attachment of an annotated copy of Odan’s Figure 1) that
inner base 11b of patentee’s impact beam or bar 11 includes “two
flanks (A to B, C to D). . . and a central portion (Fig. 1)
disposed between the two flanks.” Therefore, contrary to the
appellant’s argument, component or inner base 11b in fact does
include a central portion disposed between two flanks, that is,
the central portion extending between B and D of the annotated
Figure 1 copy.
In light of the foregoing, it is our ultimate determination
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation which the appellant has failed to successfully rebut
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007