Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
No. 16) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the brief (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kikuchi
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 11
Appellants argue that elements 12a in Kikuchi are "low
rigidity parts" and cannot be characterized as "torsionally
stiff braces" as found by the Examiner. It is argued that
"claim 1 not only defines a torsionally stiff brace, but that
the beam that the torsionally stiff brace is attached to has
'a preferentially increased torsional stiffness about a
longitudinal axis of the beam compared to a bending stiffness
in the perpendicular direction'" (Br6). It is argued that
torsional motion will cause one end of low rigidity
section 12a to open slightly and the other end of 12a to close
slightly; thus, Kikuchi actually has a reduced torsional
stiffness due to sections 12a (Br6-7). It is argued that
while lateral bending of the low rigidity part 12a is
difficult, twisting about a long axis is not, and the parts
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007