Appeal 2007-0585
Application 10/338,813
1 347, 350 (CCPA 1965); In re Brown, 228 F.2d 247, 249, 108 USPQ 232, 234
2 (CCPA 1955).2
3 We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of claims
4 1-7, 10 and 11.
5 Claims 8 and 9
6 Klag discloses a motor-vehicle-carrying tri-level railcar comprising tiers
7 having cambered decks that are welded to sidewalls (Klag, col. 3, ll. 56-58; fig. 4).
8 “To increase the clearance available for vehicles being loaded and unloaded from
9 the A deck, end portions of the B deck 14 are upwardly pivotable” (Klag, col. 5,
10 l. 66 – col. 6, l. 1).
11 The Appellants argue that Klag is concerned with industry regulated height
12 restrictions, and that eliminating Klag’s upwardly pivotable B deck end portions
13 would conflict with Klag’s desire to increase vertical clearances during loading and
14 unloading while complying with the industry height regulations (Br. 6-7). The
15 Appellants must also comply with the 20’2” railcar height regulation (Spec. 4:4-5).
16 The Appellants, in return for increased rack strength and rigidity, forego the
17 benefit of increased vertical clearances during loading and unloading provided by
18 Klag’s pivotable B deck. As discussed above, that tradeoff would have been
19 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
20 The Appellants argue that there is a conflict in combining Fylling’s
21 frameless shipping container with Klag’s railcar having a frame for structural
22 support (Br. 7). As discussed above regarding the rejection of claims 1-7, 10 and
23 11, a tri-level auto rack railcar having fixed end sections would have been obvious
2 Fylling, although directed toward a tiered automobile container for a railcar rather
than a tiered railcar, illustrates the concept of fixed, welded end sections
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013