Appeal No. 96-1639
Application 08/269,140
has not been shown to have the recited corners, we cannot agree with the examiner that it would
have been obvious to use Westermo’s corner-to-corner measuring arrangement on Deuar’s
retaining wall. Therefore, the examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-13 will not be sustained.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We hereby enter the following new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Westermo.
Westermo’s Figure 21 discloses affixing a first shoe 427 in first corner 426, affixing a
second shoe 425 in second corner 424, and placing a length altering element 422 between the first
and second shoes. The length altering element 422 may be a compressive rod (strut). Column
17, lines 32-38. We note that appellant discloses a “force applying length altering strut.”
Specification at 2, lines 23-25. The recited length altering strut is not limited to a “force
applying” length altering strut.
Westermo discloses that the length of length altering strut 422 is altered by the force of
seismic activity, for example. Column 1, lines 18-31. This satisfies the recited step of altering the
length of the length altering strut. Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in the
specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “altering” step includes
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007