Appeal No. 2004-1192
Application No. 09/691,631
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Geyer
Under section 102(b), anticipation requires that the prior art
reference disclose, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, every limitation of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As correctly
argued by appellants (Brief, page 5), Geyer fails to disclose a
“first side including an arcuate concave portion in a generally
vertical plane of an outer surface thereof...,” as required by
claims 1 and 8 on appeal. It is the examiner’s position that
inward slope S2 in Figures 2 and 11 of Geyer correspond to the
“arcuate concave portion” (Answer, pages 3 and 5). However, as
also correctly argued by appellants (Brief, page 5), the examiner
has not viewed the railway car of Geyer in a “generally vertical
plane” as required by claim 1 on appeal. A “generally vertical
plane” is one that is generally parallel to the plurality of
partitions 50, or generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
of the railway car (specification, page 10, ll. 19-22). As clearly
shown by the end views of Figures 3 and 12, the railway cars of
Figures 2 and 11 do not possess an “arcuate concave portion in a
generally vertical plane.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007