Appeal Number: 2006-0974
Application Number: 10/244,336
review. In the interest of administrative and judicial economy,
this course is appropriate wherever reasonably possible. See Ex
parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993);
Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984).
In the present case, we consider such a reasonable,
conditional interpretation to be possible. This interpretation
is that “the walls” in “an amplified deflection of the walls”
refers only to the first wall in the appellant’s claim 56 which,
the appellant’s specification indicates, is a pair of opposed
concavely shaped walls (104) which undergo an amplified second
deflection (page 12, lines 15-20).
Rejection over Rivin
Rivin discloses a structural beam comprising a tubular
element (101) having the cross-sectional shape shown in
figure 2. That figure can be visualized as comprising two
walls, one above and one below an approximately 45° line drawn
downwardly from left to right through the figure. Each of those
walls is concave toward the other. A transformable material
(102) such as water fills the tubular element (col. 3, lines 40-
42).
The appellant argues that Rivin’s structural beam has only
a single wall (brief, page 6). That argument is not persuasive
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007