Appeal No. 98-1295
Application No. 08/325,361
handling loads, we agree with the appellants that there is no
evidence that this joint also provides a “relatively flexible
hinged joint capable of transmitting tensile loads between
joined panels under blast conditions,” as is required by the
claim. There is no explicit recitation in the reference that
the joint would behave in such a fashion. The examiner’s
conclusion that the Veenema joint “will flex under some blast
conditions” is not supported by evidence and is not, from our
perspective, a mode of operation that would be apparent to one
of ordinary skill in the art from a review of the disclosure
of the invention. Thus, it can only be regarded as
speculation, which cannot form the basis for a rejection.
The same applies to Powell, which is directed to a truck
body that can be shipped in the knocked-down state and then
quickly assembled. There is no concern voiced for attenuating
the force of a blast that has occurred in the container. The
joint, shown in Figures 3, 6 and 9, would appear to meet the
first portion of the applicable requirement of claim 1, that
is, that it is relatively rigid under normal handling loads.
However, there is no evidentiary basis from which to conclude
that it also provides a relatively flexible hinged joint
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007