Appeal No. 2002-0032 Page 4
Application No. 08/514,507
flexible,” Cullen on its face does not appear to meet this limitation, for the anchor
disclosed therein comprises a pair of cables which are passed through sheaves so they
can be lengthened and shortened as necessary by hydraulic actuators to achieve the
desired resistance to movement of the bagging machine with respect to the bagged
material, and cables normally would be considered to be “flexible” rather than “non-
flexible.” To overcome this apparent shortcoming, the examiner explains in the
statement of the rejection on page 3 of the Answer that
[the Cullen cables] are accordingly made of metal which has inherent rigid
properties (i.e. “non-flexible).
In the response to the appellant’s argument he states
[i]n regard to Appellant’s argument that the cables of the Cullen reference
fail to define a “non-flexible anchor” since the cables must be flexible so
they can be wound on the respective drums and so they can assume
various shapes, Examiner agrees that the cables must exhibit some
flexible properties in order to be wound on drums. However, Examiner’s
position is that the cables are made of materials such as metals that have
inherent rigid (i.e. “non-flexible”) properties in order for the cables not to
break or snap under load.
We find the examiner’s position to be untenable.
The common definition of “flexible” is “bendable” (see, for example, Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, page 439), and it follows that “non flexible” means not
bendable. A different definition has not been established in the appellant’s
specification, where the reader is informed that resistance to movement of the bagging
machine is accomplished by a pair of adjustable anchor wing members 34 and 36
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007