Appeal No. 2000-0516 Page 3
Application No. 08/935,609
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 14) and the answer (Paper No. 15) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of this
rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and method claim 32, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons which
follow, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection.
McMullan discloses a system of shuttering for the construction of concrete walls. In
particular, McMullan's shuttering system utilizes a plurality of shutters (forms) each comprising
a metal panel 15 (the concrete-forming member) and a frame including a plurality of horizontal
L-shaped stiffeners 16 and end vertical members 18 welded to one another and to the panel.
Additionally, a central vertical stiffener 17 of channel section is also welded to the top and
bottom members (horizontal stiffeners) of the frame and to the panel where the span of the
shutter requires it (column 3, lines 41-68). Such shutters are illustrated in Figures 8-12, for
example. Figure 35 illustrates a shuttering system which appears to employ lower shutters
comprising a pair of vertical stiffeners, each offset from the vertically extending centerline of
the shutter and connected between two adjacent horizontal stiffeners.
The examiner (answer, page 3) contends that to have provided any number of
reinforcing struts 17 extending between any two inner frame members, thus affording any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007