Appeal Number: 2006-0974
Application Number: 10/244,336
first deflection causes an amplified second deflection of the
walls into the non-compressible material, exerting a second
compressive force against the non-compressible material,
resulting in a resistance to the first deflection and the force
tending to compress the beam” (answer, page 5). The appellant’s
second deflection is amplified due to the concave shape of the
opposing walls 104 (specification, page 12, lines 15-20). The
examiner has not established that Konsevich’s planar walls which
lack this concave shape nevertheless are capable of undergoing
an amplified second deflection.
Consequently, the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
appellant’s claimed invention by Konsevich.
Rejection over Fox
Fox discloses a structural member having around it a
protective encasement member made of a material such as
fiberglass bonded to the structural member by a filler of inert
material such as concrete or epoxy resin (col. 1, lines 10-13
and 59-66; col. 2, lines 22-31; col. 4, lines 1-6).
The examiner argues that “[b]y its very nature and shape
Rivin [sic, Fox] would ‘react’ such that a first compressive
force, (along any of the sides), tending to compress the beam by
a first deflection causes an amplified second deflection of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007