Appeal No. 2004-1542
Application No. 09/640,335
and use the forces to bias the units in a selected direction to
increase stability of the architecture. Claim 11 recites an
architecture comprising living units each shaped and arranged to
absorb weather forces of predicted weather patterns and use the
forces to bias the units in a selected direction to increase
stability of the architecture. Claim 18 recites an architecture
comprising living units each arranged to absorb weather forces of
predicted weather patterns and use the forces to bias the units
together to increase stability of the architecture. Claim 28
recites a method of erecting an architecture comprising the step
of erecting living units arranged to use predicted weather forces
to bias the units toward the supporting surface. Each of the
rejections on appeal rests on a determination by the examiner
that Frey meets these limitations.
More specifically, the examiner finds correspondence between
Frey’s housing units 26-30 and the living units recited in the
appellant’s claims and submits that
[a]lthough Frey does not specifically disclose that said
units are arranged to absorb weather forces of predicted
weather patterns and use the forces to bias the units
toward the supporting surface and in a selected
direction to increase stability of the architecture[,]
[t]he examiner would like to point out that these
limitations are functional limitations, and Frey
discloses all of the specific structural features of the
claims. Therefore, the units are inherently capable of
resisting, or absorbing weather forces of predicted
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007