Appeal No. 2004-2067 Page 3
Application No. 09/929,362
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we must reverse the examiner’s rejection.
Warner discloses a multiple flying pole tent comprising a perimeter frame 17
including four frame members 16 and corner joints 35 supported from the ground by
four corner posts 12. The tent canopy 14 is supported by four flying poles 24 resting on
a cable network 29. Peaks 20 in the canopy correspond to locations where the flying
poles 24 contact the canopy 14. As best illustrated in Figure 3, the cable network 29
consists of a central cable 28 having two connectable ends 30a and 30b shown
connected together and four cables 26 connected between the central cable 28 and the
corner joints 35. With ends 30a and 30b connected together the entire assembly is tight
and the canopy 14 is tensioned (page 5). Warner points out on page 6 that
[i]f the cables were connected across diagonally opposite
corners or to the frame members 16 without the central
cable 28 the tension in each cable would be high and
tensioning the canopy 14 would require a large force. By
utilizing a centre cable 28 and placing the poles at each
corner the tension force is halved making it much easier to
simply pull ends 30a and 30b together and couple them
thereby tensioning the whole tent.
As recognized by the examiner, Warner lacks (1) a triangular frame, as called for
in independent claims 1 and 12, (2) three cables connected (claim 1) or connectable
(claim 12) between respective ones of three corners (claim 1) or corner posts (claim 12)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007