Appeal No. 2003-1725
Application No. 09/357,645 Page 13
for nozzle 22 at least to the extent that force is not great
enough to overcome the longitudinal stiffness of that portion of
the spring plate in that relaxed configuration.3
Moreover, we note that in a second configuration as depicted
in figure 2 of Payne, the spring plate (29) of Payne would be
compliant with such a force, as described above. This is so
since such a force has a component that acts in a downward
direction perpendicular to the substantially horizontal
longitudinal portion of the spring plate (29) as shown in the
figure 2 configuration of Payne. Significantly, appellants have
acknowledged that the spring plate 29 would be compliant to such
a force in the figure 2 configuration. See page 11 of the reply
brief, wherein appellants state that:
In Payne, when spring plates 28 and 29 are in the
closed configuration (illustrated in Fig. 2), they are
not non-compliant to forces applied by the bladders or
tubes, or any other forces. To the contrary, the
spring plates only maintain this configuration because
they are being held in a non-equilibrium configuration,
by the forces applied by the bladders. The spring
plates themselves, when in the closed configuration,
are not only compliant to any forces tending to bend
3 We note that appellants acknowledge that the curved spring
plate of Payne in the figure 1 configuration possesses an elastic
bending stiffness that would resist the application of a force
thereto. See page 15 of the substitute brief, which portion of
the substitute brief is incorporated by reference into the
supplemental brief, at page 20 thereof.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007