Appeal 2006-2796
Application 09/230,439
1 That argument is not convincing for the reason given above with respect to the
2 rejection over Naka ‘951.
3 The Appellant argues that Naka ‘797 does not disclose an exposed treading
4 surface adapted to be tread upon by pedestrians (Reply Br. 3). The Naka ‘797
5 tooth-shaped non-skid top (25) of the edge bead cushion is exposed and is adapted
6 to be tread upon by pedestrians (col. 3, ll. 3-7; fig. 2).
7 For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
8 rejection over Naka ‘797.
9 Rejection over Nelson
10 Nelson discloses a stair nosing (1) comprising a rigid base member (2)
11 having horizontal (21) and vertical (22) flanges, and a flexible tread (3) having
12 flaps (30) (col. 2, ll. 47-50, 63; fig. 2). The flexible tread is fastened to the rigid
13 base member by ribs (31) that interlock with serrations (28) in a groove (27) in the
14 base member, and by flexible flaps (33) that are at the end of the ribs and engage
15 the walls of the groove (col. 3, l. 61 – col. 4, l. 5; figs. 3, 4). The base member is
16 made of metal, preferably aluminum, or rigid synthetic material, and the tread
17 member is made of flexible synthetic resin such as vinyl resin (col. 4, ll. 6-9).
18 The Examiner argues that Nelson’s base member (2) corresponds to the
19 Appellant’s working member (Answer 3). That is incorrect because Nelson’s base
20 member does not have an exposed treading surface adapted to be tread upon by
21 pedestrians. Instead, it is covered by a flexible tread member (3) (col. 2, ll. 47-49).
22 The Examiner argues that the aluminum of which Nelson’s base member can be
23 made (col. 4, ll. 6-7) has a modulus of elasticity less than 1011 N/m2 (Answer 4).
24 The Appellant asserts that the modulus of elasticity of aluminum is 7x1011 N/m2
25 (Br. 12). Actually, the modulus of elasticity of aluminum at room temperature
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013