Appeal No. 1996-1655
Application 08/036,157
appellants’ disclosure (see edge 24 of support pad 22 in appellant’s Figures 3 and 4) is not exactly the
same as the perimeter portion taught by the references (see Hatch’s Figure 5B and Wanlass’ Figures 6
and 7), the references teach what is actually claimed. Claim 1 on appeal broadly requires that the
support pad have a certain edge profile, a "well-radiused convex curvature cross-sectional profile," and
the claim does not specify which edge (the edge running the length of the load beam, or the edge 24
disclosed by appellant). Claim 1 does not require that the support pad edge having the recited profile
be "perpendicular" to the axis corresponding to the length of the load beam.
In summary, although we agree with the examiner that the applied references would have taught
or suggested a support pad having a "well-radiused convex curvature cross-sectional profile," we must
agree with appellant that the recited feature of a load beam having a support
pad which is partially thinned is neither taught nor would have been suggested by the applied
references. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007