Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
"a laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility."
However, it is not reasonable to consider section 12a both
"a laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility"
and "a torsionally stiff brace" because the brace is claimed
as "attached" to the region of perpendicular flexibility.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites "said brace longitudinally
dividing said region of perpendicular flexibility" and section
12a, which is itself a region of perpendicular flexibility,
does not divide a region of perpendicular flexibility. For
these reasons, the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 to be
anticipated. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9,
and 11 is reversed.
Claims 12, 13, and 18
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 1, we
find that the low rigidity sections 12a in Kikuchi "provides
an increased torsional stiffness about said X direction," as
recited in claim 12.
Appellants argue that Kikuchi does not teach "said beam
being flexible in a plurality of sections that are spaced
apart in said X and Y directions and joined by a brace
extending in said Y direction," as recited in claim 12.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007