Appeal 2006-2796
Application 09/230,439
1 The Examiner argues that Aidan’s semi-rigid polyvinyl chloride edge
2 portion corresponds to the Appellant’s working member and has a modulus of
3 elasticity less than 1011 N/m2 (Answer 4-5). The Examiner, however, has not
4 explained why there is reason to believe that Aidan’s semi-rigid polyvinyl chloride
5 edge portion has the E/H ratio required by the Appellant’s claims.
6 Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation of
7 the Appellant’s claimed invention by Aidan.
8 Rejection over Kemper
9 Kemper discloses a stair edge tread angle member (1) having a tread
10 limb (2) and an abutment limb (3) (col. 4, ll. 3-7). The tread angle member
11 advantageously can be made of aluminum (col. 3, ll. 38-39).
12 The Examiner argues that Kemper’s aluminum has a modulus of elasticity
13 less than 1011 N/m2 (Answer 6). That argument is not convincing because the
14 Appellant has asserted that the modulus of elasticity of aluminum is 7x1011 N/m2
15 (Br. 12) and the Examiner has provided no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the
16 Examiner has not explained why there is reason to believe that Kemper’s
17 aluminum tread angle member has the E/H ratio required by the Appellant’s
18 claims.
19 Therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
20 anticipation of the Appellant’s claimed invention by Kemper.
21 DECISION
22 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 18-20 and 22 over Nelson,
23 claims 18 and 20 over Kemper, and claims 18-20 and 22 over Aidan are reversed.
24 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 18-20, 22, 27-30 and 32-35 over
25 Naka ‘797, claims 18-20 and 22 over Naka ‘951, and claims 18-20 and 22 over
26 Naka ‘294 are affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013