Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
units . In either case the examiner’s rejection is not6
sustainable.
If Coffey’s plates 18 alone are considered to correspond
to the claimed panel units, then we simply do not agree with
the examiner that “[a]s the panel units 18 are secured to the
beams 15, 16 which in turn are confined between lugs 25 of
wheel unit 21, 23, this arrangement renders the adjacent panel
unit (15, 16, 18) [sic, 18?] incapable of disassembly when the
wheel unit is connected thereto” (final rejection, page 5).
As is made clear by the above quoted portions of Coffey’s
specification, and as aptly pointed out by appellant, the
plates 18 extend over and are removably bolted to the beams of
the skeletal framework of beams 14-17 (Coffey, page 1, lines
47-55), while the wheel units are secured to the lower flanges
of the radial beams of the framework (Coffey, page 1, lines
66-72). We can think of no circumstance where one would
6See, for example, final rejection, page 5 (“The added
limitation in claim 1 is broad enough to read on the
securement between the panel units (18, 15, 16) and the wheel
unit (21, 23) . . .” and “this arrangement renders the
adjacent panel units (15, 16, 18) incapable of disassembly . .
.”).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007