Appeal 2007-0269
Application 10/799,095
1 would even work for larger ribs. The ribs of Brockenbrough are 3 inches wide.
2 (Brockenbrough, col. 3, l. 24).
3 Turning to the specific claims, we do not credit the Examiner’s argument
4 that the end brackets 17, 18 can be regarded as a hinge (Answer 4-5), as called for
5 in claims 1, 28, and 29. It is clear that the structure is a clamp fixedly holding the
6 ends of the strips together.
7 With respect to argued claims 9, 17, and 23, which require layers of plastic
8 that differ in structure or composition, we credit the argument of the Appellant that
9 Welygan does not disclose multiple layers of extruded plastic. The Examiner
10 argues that the use of differing compositions is taught by Brockenbrough itself.
11 (Brockenbrough, col. 5, l. 49). While it may be true that Brockenbrough discloses
12 differing compositions, there is no indication that plastic is contemplated for any of
13 the strips of Brockenbrough, let alone layers of plastic differing in composition.
14 We do agree with the Examiner that Brockenbrough discloses layers of different
15 structure (Brockenbrough col. 3, ll. 28-31), but it would not have been obvious to
16 make these strips of differing structure of extruded plastic.
17 With respect to the argued claims 7, 15, and 21 directed to friction to
18 dissipate impact energy, we agree with Appellant that Brockenbrough is silent with
19 respect to frictional force as a means to dissipate impact energy. The Examiner’s
20 reliance on frictional forces between the corrugations of Brockenbrough as the
21 beam collapses is apparently speculation.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013