Appeal No. 2004-0753
Application No. 10/120,096
presents a neat appearance to the joint between
adjacent wall modules. The joint on the interior of
the vehicle may be formed similarly to the exterior
joint, or may simply be formed by means of a cap member
14 of extruded [aluminum] alloy or plastics material
which is snapped into place to cover the joint.
It will be appreciate from Figure 2 that no
structural pillar spanning the thickness of the wall is
required at the joint between adjacent wall modules,
and that the thermal conductivity of the joint is low
because no metal member bridges the gap between the
interior and the exterior skins of the wall at the
joint [page 2, lines 22 through 66].
Also of note is that the lateral edges of each skin are
formed with joggles 4 which offset the extreme edge portions of
the skins toward the opposite skin. As shown in Figure 2, the
extrusions 13 and/or cap member 14 lie within the offsets so as
to be essentially flush with the interior or exterior surfaces of
the modules.
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding (see
page 2 in the final rejection) that the joint disclosed by Higham
meets all of the limitations in representative claim 37 except
for the one relating to the “logistics plate member.” Although
each of Higham’s interior extrusion 13 and cap member 14
alternatives constitutes a plate member associated with the inner
skins at the offset opposite end portions thereof for spacing at
least a portion of the panel/module end portions apart from each
other a predetermined distance as recited in the claim, such
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007