Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
characteristic of the gas spring recited in appealed claim 1
(“to assist in stably retaining said tread base in said second
position relative to said upright structure with said tread base
in said second position”). (Reply brief at 2-3.)
5 We do not find this argument persuasive. Appealed claim 1
does not limit the degree or manner in which the gas spring
“assist[s] in stably retaining” the tread base at the storage
position. (FF21.) As already pointed out, Teague teaches that
“when the bed continues to move toward the fully closed
10 position, the [gas] springs reverse their action and act against
that continued movement.” (Column 2, lines 6-8; emphasis
added.) Thus, without the gas springs, the lifting force and
the momentum of the rotating body (i.e., “continued movement”)
in Teague would necessarily cause the body to extend beyond the
15 storage position. Giving the disputed claim limitation its
broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that Teague’s
gas spring would reasonably appear to “assist” in stable
retention of the rotating body. In this regard, the appellant
has not proffered any evidence (e.g., declaration evidence) that
20 would support the allegation that Teague’s gas spring does not
“assist” in stable retention. (FF22.) Mere attorney arguments
or conclusory statements do not take the place of evidence.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007