Appeal 2007-0585
Application 10/338,813
1 clearance when the hinged end sections are raised, thereby permitting taller
2 automobiles to be moved past the end sections into the depressed central portion of
3 the railcar (Spec. 1:7-22). The Appellants point out that the hinged sections, when
4 lowered, can accommodate only relatively short cars, and that the hinged sections
5 require, for adequate strength and rigidity of the rack structure, braces that add
6 weight and expense to the railcar and locally reduce the railcar’s interior width
7 (Spec. 1: 23 – 2:4; 2: 12-27). Also, the Appellants point out, hinged end sections
8 increase the loading and unloading time and labor and require maintenance
9 including lubrication (Spec. 2:27 – 3:4).
10 The Appellants, instead of using hinged end sections, use bolted or welded
11 end sections that provide greater strength and rigidity than hinged end sections
12 (Spec. 3:13-15). The downside to the Appellants’ approach, of course, is that the
13 first tier of the Appellants’ railcar cannot accommodate automobiles that are as tall
14 as those that can be moved below a raised hinged end section into the central
15 depressed portion of the railcar. The maximum automobile height accommodated
16 by the Appellants’ first tier is about 63” (Spec. 3:21-25).
17 Eliminating a hinged end section’s known advantage of permitting taller
18 automobiles to be loaded into the central depressed portion of the railcar, in return
19 for eliminating a hinged end section’s known disadvantages of reduced rack
20 strength and rigidity, reduced local interior width and increased expense due to
21 required braces, and increased maintenance cost would have been an obvious
22 tradeoff for one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Wilson, 377 F.2d 1014, 1017,
23 153 USPQ 740, 742 (CCPA 1967); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 969, 144 USPQ
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013