Appeal No. 2004-0366 Page 11
Application No. 09/848,044
the wind primarily spills around said first and second edges, whereby the wind tends to
rotate said sign about said axis and said at least one cable segment tends to constrain
such rotational motion." We agree.
The examiner's position (answer, pp. 4-5 and 12-15) with respect to claims 1 and
18 that the claimed weights are readable on Zachner's springs 7 is totally without merit
for the reasons set forth in the brief. In that regard, Zachner's spring 7 is not a weight
which applies tension to the cable 1.
The examiner's position (answer, pp. 4-5 and 15) with respect to claim 21 is that
the claimed sign configured such that the wind primarily spills around "said first and
second edges, whereby the wind tends to rotate said sign about said axis and said at
least one cable segment tends to constrain such rotational motion" is readable on
Zachner's sign 8. We do not agree. In that regard, the appellants' sign is configured as
shown in Figures 6A-6C to cause the wind to primarily spill off of the vertical edges
64a and 64b of the sign faces 50a and 50b, respectively as explained on pages 14-15
of the specification. The examiner's position that Zachner's sign 6 is inherently
configured as claimed is shear speculation. As such, the examiner has not established
the claim 21 is anticipated by Zachner.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007