Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
e) claims 7 and 8, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Chatard;
f) claims 13, 25-27 and 36, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103, as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Funke; and
g) claims 15 and 31, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Wertz.
The § 112, 1st paragraph, rejection of claim 35
Claim 35 calls for means for interconnecting the pie-
shaped panel units that “permit[] flex movement of said
adjacent pair of panel units along said radial line of
separation therebetween.” The examiner contends (answer, page
5; emphasis in original) that “lines 28-34 on page 3 of the
specification disclose ‘the individual panel units are rigid
yet flex along the lines of separation’. . . . It is unclear
how . . . a rigid panel unit can flex.” The examiner further
contends (answer, page 6) that
[d]rawing figure 4 combined with the disclosure on
page 9 infer that the beams 34 are fixed
(nonmovable/nondetachable) in the groove of the
wheel bracket. If adjacent beams 34 are fixed to
each other, how can the panel unit flex? Appellant
has not provide[d] adequate disclosure for this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007