Appeal 2007-0585
Application 10/338,813
1 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Klag is relied upon by the Examiner for a
2 suggestion to use cambered decks and welds between decks and sidewalls (Ans. 4).
3 The Appellants do not explain, and it is not apparent, why it would not have been
4 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Klag’s cambered decks and welds
5 between decks and sidewalls in the above-discussed obvious tri-level auto rack
6 railcar having a second deck with fixed end sections that contribute strength and
7 rigidity to the railcar structure.
8 For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
9 rejection of claims 8 and 9.
10 DECISION
11 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-7, 10 and 11 over Fylling
12 in view of Lewin, and claims 8 and 9 over Fylling in view of Lewin and Klag are
13 affirmed.
14 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
15 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
16 AFFIRMED
17
18
19
20
21 hh
22
22 FITCH EVEN TABIN AND FLANNERY
23
23 120 SOUTH LA SALLE STREET
24
25 SUITE 1600
26 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
(Fylling, col. 5, ll. 8-13).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013