Appeal No. 2003-0387 Page 12
Application No. 09/772,275
Hawthorne would result in freight car truck assembly coming within the scope of claim
1. In that regard, while Hawthorne may have suggested a freight car truck assembly
having a wedge angle 2 of 30° and a wedge spring force P of 3160 lbs., the examiner
has not produced any rationale as to why that freight car truck assembly falls within the
scope of claim 1. The mere fact that a wedge angle 2 of 30° is within the range set
forth in claim 2 and a wedge spring force P of 3160 lbs. is within the range set forth in
claim 3 does not mean that when the wedge angle 2 is 30° and the other variables in
the two equations are determined from the rail car truck that the two equations
determine that the spring force must be 3160 lbs. Additionally, the relationship between
the wedge angle 2 and the wedge spring force P as defined by the two equations set
forth in claim 1 produces a new and unexpected result as explained in the briefs before
us in this appeal which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results
suggested and taught by Hawthorne.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1,
and claims 2 to 6 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007