Appeal No. 1998-0819
Application 08/541,656
representative claim, we fail to find that this limitation is
before us for our consideration. In any event, we agree with
the Examiner that the Foote structure inherently includes
gimbals.
On page 6 of the brief, Appellants disagree with the
Examiner’s statement that Hinlein shows a peg-leg low beam
with a curvilinear portion. On page 7 of the Examiner’s
answer, the Examiner argues that Hinlein shows a peg-leg low
beam in figure 1 with a curved portion generally shown as
element 28 and linear portions generally shown as element 24
with tabs 50 mounted on the linear edge of the curvilinear
portion. We note that the Appellants have not responded to
this argument.
Upon our careful review of Hinlein figure 1, we find that
Hinlein does show a peg-leg low beam being defined by a
curvilinear portion extending from one end of the peg-leg low
beam, the curvilinear portion being further defined by a
curved edge and substantially straight edge and includes at
least two marginal tabs defined along said substantially
straight edge as recited in Appellants claim 2. We agree with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007