Appeal No. 1999-1904 Page 3
Application No. 08/704,778
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we shall
sustain the examiner's rejections.
Scarlett discloses a structural beam comprising a web 30, a lower chord 10 and an
upper chord 20. As best seen in Figure 3, a groove 13 is cut into a surface 11 of the chord
10. The groove comprises biplanar side walls each having a first planar section 14 which
inclines outwardly and downwardly from edge 16 and a second planar section 15, which
inclines inwardly and downwardly from the first planar section toward the base 17 of the
groove. A longitudinal spline 18 extends upwardly from the base 17 of the groove and defines
spline side walls 19. The upper chord 20 is provided with a similar groove 23 having biplanar
side walls. The web 30 comprises a tongue 31 on each of the bottom and top edges thereof
which tapers bidirectionally toward shoulders 32 and toward a peripheral edge 33, thereby
creating respective planar surfaces 34 and 35. The tongue 31 is formed by a milling machine
utilizing a pair of opposed blades 40, as shown in Figure 4. A tapered slot 36 is formed into
the peripheral edge 33 of the web thereby bifurcating the tongue into paired legs 37. As seen
in Figures 6 and 7, the groove 13 is formed in each chord by consecutive parallel longitudinal
cutting operations which create a profile complementary to that of the tongue 31. The term
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007