Ex Parte Walker et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0655                                                        
          Application No. 09/896,505                                                  
               1.  An elongate metallic structural member having an                   
          elongate, planar web surface having longitudinal edges; a first             
          leg member and a second leg member depending to one side of said            
          web member from said longitudinal edges, said first leg member              
          and said second leg member being mirror images, said first leg              
          member and said second leg member terminating with outwardly                
          extending hollow flanges, each outwardly extending flange having            
          a margin member juxtaposed said respective leg member.                      
                                    THE PRIOR ART                                     
               The references relied on by the examiner to support the                
          final rejection are:                                                        
          Seccombe et al.           5,535,569           Jul. 16, 1996                 
          (Seccombe)                                                                  
          Dolati et al.             5,771,653           Jun. 30, 1998                 
          (Dolati)                                                                    
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as           
          being unpatentable over Dolati in view of Seccombe.                         
               Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 11) and answer           
          (Paper No. 12) for the respective positions of the appellants and           
          examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.1                           




               1                                                                      
               1 In both the final rejection and answer, the examiner                 
          omitted claims 6 and 8 from the statement of the rejection.  The            
          accompanying explanations of the rejection indicate, however,               
          that the omission was inadvertent.                                          
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007