Appeal No. 96-1293
Application 07/998,673
However, regarding appellant's claim 3 on appeal, we do
not see that the applied references to Ziegelman, Patena and Paul
would have been suggestive of "a plurality of elongate
horizontally extending metal plates which are each permanently
fixed to the top horizontal surface of a side beam" of a building
structure, as required in that claim. The plates referred to in
claim 3 are seen in Figures 4 and 5 of the application drawings
as elements (112). In Paul, the plates (21) pointed to by the
examiner, like the pads (28) of Ziegelman and the mounting plates
(26) of Patena, are positioned at and welded to the base of the
column or post members of the building structure and not to the
top surface of a side beam of the building structure as set
forth in appellant's claim 3. Thus, the examiner's rejection
of claim 3 will not be sustained.
Claims 10 and 11, like claims 4 through 6 and 18 above,
have not been separately argued by appellant with any reasonable
degree of specificity and must therefore be considered to fall
with claim 2 from which they depend. We note, however, that the
T-shaped extrusions and encapsulating means (48) of Ziegelman
Figure 3 clearly appear to provide the channels as required in
claims 10 and 11 on appeal.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007