Appeal No. 2005-1264 Page 9
Application No. 09/682,594
There can be no reasonable dispute that the appellants’ original specification and
drawings would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the collapsible rail
26 is pivotable between a raised position, as seen in Figure 1, and a collapsed position,
as illustrated in Figure 2 (the front section) and in Figures 3 and 4. While the second full
paragraph on page 5 of the original specification certainly confuses the issue as to
whether the end rail elements 42, 44 correspond to the collapsible rails 26, in any event,
it is abundantly clear from the original disclosure that the end rail elements 42, 44 also
pivot between a raised position forming a basket 46 on the roof of the vehicle and a
collapsed portion and further can serve as a base support for objects mounted on the
side portion of the vehicle when the storage surface is moved to the second position.
Moreover, there appears to be a slat disposed along the pivot axis of the collapsible rail
segment. To the extent that such slat is located at the pivot axis, reference to such slat
as a “hinge bar” may not be objectionable or raise the issue of new matter. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the pivoting action of the end rail
elements or collapsible rails relative to the storage surface (or track elements 36) could
be accomplished either by pivoting the other two lateral slats and connecting elements
of the end rail element or collapsible rail together with the slat located at the pivot axis
(the “hinge bar”) relative to track elements 36 or by pivoting the other two lateral slats
and connecting elements of the end rail element or collapsible rail relative to the slat
located at the pivot axis (the “hinge bar”). In light of the absence of the illustration or
other disclosure of any hinge structure between the “hinge bar” and the remainder of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007