Appeal No. 2003-0360 Page 4
Application No. 09/264,398
Claim 20
An arrangement adapted to be mounted on load carrier feet that are
disposed at opposing side edge regions of a vehicle roof, said
arrangement comprising:
a load carrier strut having a substantially streamlined outer cross-sectional
configuration defined at least partially by an outer contour line and, at
opposing end regions thereof, longitudinal slots located on an underside
of said load carrier strut, each of said longitudinal slots is adapted to
receive a drawbar; and
said outer contour line of said streamlined out cross-sectional
configuration being broken at said underside of said load carrier strut by a
longitudinal projecting portion having a forward defining surface, a rear
defining surface and a bottom surface.
The Rejection Under The First Paragraph Of Section 112
Among the structure defined in claim 33 is “a strut having a substantially
rectangular cross-sectional configuration defined at least at partially [sic, at least
partially] by an outer contour line” (emphasis added). It is the examiner’s position that
this structure was not disclosed in the specification, and therefore the claim runs afoul
of the first paragraph of Section 112. We agree.
As described in the specification, the load carrier strut 6 has an outer edge line 7
which defines the streamlined cross section (page 5), and there also is a “rectangular
tube profile” which has a front wall 14, a rear wall 15, and upper wall 16 and a bottom
wall 12 (page 6). Figure 1 of the appellant’s drawings makes it clear that outer edge
line 7 transcribes a substantially elliptical profile which defines the strut, within which is
positioned the rectangular tube profile. This being the case, the limitation in claim 33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007