Appeal No. 2002-1548
Application No. 09/408,042
fastened to the longitudinal roof beams so as to be "air-tight
and water-tight" as required in claim 1 on appeal is based on
total speculation and conjecture. We have found no such
disclosure or teachings in Dominguez and the examiner has pointed
to none.
Moreover, it appears to us after having closely reviewed
drawing Figures 2, 3 and 4 of Dominguez and the disclosure at
column 5, lines 29-68, that the examiner has entirely
misunderstood and/or misrepresented the structural features of
the car body (4) therein. From Figures 2 and 3 it appears clear
that the roof sheet (42) of the car body defines the outer
surface of the top portion of the covered hopper car and, from
Figures 2 and 4, in particular, that there are transversely
extending arched support members (unnumbered) secured to the
underside of the roof sheet and ending short of the longitudinal
roof beams, presumably to stiffen the dome-shaped roof sheet.
Notwithstanding the apparently incorrect showing of the lead line
associated with reference character (42) in Figure 4 of
Dominguez, we believe the above conclusion is also clearly
supported by the disclosure of Dominguez, in that, the patent
specifically indicates (in contrast to the examiner’s assertions)
that the running boards (44) and end running boards (46) are
fitted upon the roof sheet (42) and not placed on any transverse
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007