Appeal No. 2004-1192
Application No. 09/691,631
which is affixed to the upper end portion or top portion of end
wall 5, and therefore is not part of the side wall of the railway
car (col. 4, ll. 14-21). Furthermore, Figure 11 of Gielow is a top
view of the railway car and not a view in a “generally vertical
plane” as discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief, we
determine that the examiner has not established that all of the
limitations of claims 1 and 8 on appeal have been described by
Gielow within the meaning of section 102(b). Therefore we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 8.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1-3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Geyer is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Gielow is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007