Appeal No. 2001-2378
Application No. 09/479,932
on
pages 5 and 6 of the answer, wherein the examiner states:
. . . it should be noted that the expression
“maximum permissible stress level” is a relative
term, which is readable as any high level of force,
which would include an extremely high level of force
since a steel rail can withstand a very high level
of force before failing. When such high level of
force is applied to compress an elastic material
such as intermediate layer 5 of Meier, the elastic
material would certainly become more rigid or
substantially rigid, as broadly recited in the
instant claims.
. . . .
Regarding appellant’s [sic, appellants’]
argument directed to claim 14, it is the examiner’s
position that intermediate layer 5 (decoupling
means) of Meier inherently provide[s] a certain
level of decoupling between the rail securing device
and the sleeper, and a certain ability to help
preventing [sic, prevent] stress, as broadly recited
in the claim. Furthermore, the relative terms
“substantial” or “substantially” [do] not set forth
any specific level to define over the prior art.
Discussion
First, to the extent the examiner’s rejection is based on
the proposition that the molded elastic part 5 of Meier
displays relatively elastic or “soft” properties during one
phase of its operation and relatively rigid or “hard”
properties during another phase of its operation, we do not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007