Appeal No. 2003-0087 11
Application No. 09/512,164
On this basis, we will sustain the standing rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d at 794, 215 USPQ at 571; In re Pearson, 494 F.2d at
1402, 181 USPQ at 644. We will also sustain the standing rejection of claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) since appellants state that claims 2 and 13 stand or fall together.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds that the attachment means set forth in
paragraph (e) of claim 1 “is associated with” an extension piece attached to the force
transfer lever of the railway vehicle braking system. The requirement that the attachment
means “is associated with” (emphasis added) the extension piece of the force transfer
lever of the railway vehicle braking system positively relates the actuator to the railway
vehicle braking system. Thus, in contrast to claim 1, claim 3 positively sets forth a
relationship between a spring applied actuator and a component of a railway vehicle
braking system whereby the actuator may operate the railway vehicle braking system.
Notwithstanding the examiner’s view to the contrary (see pages 6-8 of the answer), the
combined teachings of Fontaine and Pierce do not disclose or suggest that the actuator of
Fontaine may be used to operate a railway vehicle braking system, much less that the
actuator of Fontaine may be associated with an extension piece of a lever to operate a
7(...continued)
“read on” something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found
in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007