Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
Appellants argue (Br14-15):
Kohso et al. do not teach regions of perpendicular
flexibility that are spaced apart in both X and Y
directions. While the strips of Kohso et al. are spaced
apart in what may be termed the Y direction, no X
direction spacing is apparent. Moreover, no brace is
shown in that reference joining such regions of
perpendicular flexibility that are spaced apart in both X
and Y directions. The torsionally stiff brace defined in
claim 12 would have less ability to reduce longitudinal
torsional vibration of the beam, if it were not joined to
regions of perpendicular flexibility spaced apart in both
X and Y directions as shown in Kohso et al.
The Examiner does not address these arguments.
In the limitation of "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" we interpret "spaced apart in said X . . .
direction" to mean that a brace separates flexible sections
along the X direction; e.g., laterally spaced strip 48 in
Appellants' figure 1 is divided into two sections spaced apart
in the X direction by brace 53 and the laterally spaced strip
160 in Appellants' figure 8 is divided into several sections
spaced apart in the X direction by braces 166. Kohso has a
pair of strips spaced apart in the Y direction, but the strips
are not spaced apart in the X direction because a brace would
be required. Thus, the Examiner erred in finding
- 16 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007