Ex parte SICKING et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-0291                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/772,559                                                  


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The appellants' invention relates to a guardrail barrier               
          which provides an effective depth or capture area intended to               
          receive a moving vehicle in a recessed portion of the                       
          guardrail barrier bounded by upper and lower curved portions                
          projecting toward the roadway to stabilize the vehicle and                  
          reduce the tendency for the vehicle to vault over or dive                   
          under the barrier or to roll when redirected by holding the                 
          vehicle against upward and downward motion (specification, p.               
          1).  Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is                      
          illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:                         
               1.  A guardrail barrier that balances section                          
               modulus, moment of inertia and membrane effect                         
               without requiring substantially more material to                       
               reduce the tendency of high center of mass vehicles                    
               from turning over comprising:                                          
                    outer curves;                                                     
                    a central portion between said outer curves;                      
                    the central portion and outer curves being                        
               positioned to provide an effective depth of between                    
               substantially 9 to 15 inches.                                          

               The examiner relied upon the following prior art                       
          references of record in rejecting the appealed claims:                      








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007