Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
feature.
We will not sustain this rejection. Like appellant, we
think the examiner has misconstrued the term “fixing”
appearing on page 9, line 25, of the specification. Page 9,
lines 22-27 of appellant’s specification states that the wheel
brackets are “for securely fixing the adjacent beams 34 with
respect to each other, while permitting some relative flex
between the connected units”
(emphasis added). That is, the wheel brackets constitute a
joint between the panels “for securely fixing” (i.e.,
capturing or holding) adjacent panel relative to one another,
while permitting a limited amount of flex between the panel
units along the radial lines of separation. The specification
in effect instructs the skilled artisan to design the joint so
that it is robust enough to hold the panel units together, yet
supple enough to permit some flex at the joint line
therebetween. The skilled artisan would have no trouble, in
our view, in fabricating such a joint. In this regard,
compliance with the first paragraph of § 112 is adjudged from
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007