Appeal No. 2004-1192
Application No. 09/691,631
The examiner states that the “broad limitation” of an arcuate
concave portion can be met by any component of a vehicle side wall
such as a sheet member undergoing deformation by the action of the
wind or simply by a dent in the side wall (Answer, paragraph
bridging pages 5-6). However, these assertions by the examiner
have not been supported by any evidence on this record. See In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief,
we determine that the examiner has not established that Geyer
describes every limitation of claims 1 and 8 on appeal within the
meaning of section 102(b). Therefore we reverse the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2 and 3 which depend on claim 1, as well as
claim 8, and claim 9 which depends on claim 8.
B. The Rejection over Geilow
The examiner finds that Gielow teaches an “arcuate concave
portion (58) in a generally vertical plane” (Answer, page 4). The
examiner finds that Figure 11 of Gielow shows the top view of a
railway car having a concave portion (58) in a generally vertical
plane (Answer, page 6).
As correctly argued by appellants (Brief, page 7), portion
(58) of Gielow is a “connective portion” of an airfoil assembly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007