Appeal Number: 2006-0974
Application Number: 10/244,336
because each of the opposing surfaces of Rivin’s tubular element
reasonably can be considered a wall.
The appellant argues that a compressive force will not
cause an amplified second deflection of Rivin’s wall into
Rivin’s transformable material (ice) as required by the
appellant’s claim 56, and that the ice can cause the walls to
buckle outwardly because water expands when transformed from the
liquid to the solid phase (brief, page 6). We are not convinced
by that argument because the fact that Riven’s walls 101 are
concave like the appellant’s walls 104 indicates that before
Rivin’s water is frozen, Riven’s structural beam, like that of
the appellant, meets that claim requirement.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection of claims 56-63 over Rivin.
Hence, we affirm that rejection.
Rejection over Konsevich
Konsevich discloses a printed wiring board vibration
dampening stiffener beam having thin metal foil strips (32)
bonded to each other and to a stiffening web (24) by a
viscoelastic adhesive (34) (col. 3, line 22; col. 4, lines 1-4).
The examiner argues that “[b]y its very nature and shape
Konsevich would ‘react’ such that a first compressive force,
(along any of the sides), tending to compress the beam by a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007