Appeal No. 2005-0655
Application No. 09/896,505
Each of claims 3 through 5, 7 and 9, either directly or by
virtue of its dependency, further defines the claimed metallic
structural member as having a second web member.2 Conceding that
the Dolati structural member does not comprise a second web
member of the type set forth in these claims, the examiner
nonetheless concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
the structural member with same by somehow rearranging Dolati’s
channel-shaped reinforcement tracks 43 (see page 4 in the
answer). Dolati, however, whether considered alone or in
conjunction with Seccombe, does not provide the requisite
evidentiary support for this conclusion.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 11
is affirmed with respect to claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10 and 11, and
reversed with respect to claims 3 through 5, 7 and 9.
2
2 The recitation of “said second web member” in claim 7
lacks a proper antecedent basis. Appropriate steps should be
taken to correct this informality in the event of further
prosecution before the examiner.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007