Appeal 2007-1309
Application 10/873,241
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding Ortwein discloses, either explicitly or inherently, each and every
element of the claims. In particular, the issue is whether the Appellants have
shown that the Examiner erred in finding Ortwein’s elastic layer forms a column
which is under a vertical compressive stress when the column lies wedged into the
rail.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Ortwein discloses an infrastructure for railway tracks with continuous elastic
support (Ortwein, col. 1, ll. 13-14).
2. With reference to Figure 1, Ortwein discloses an infrastructure having “a
rail 1 and a plate 2 made of concrete, whereby the rail 1 is supported via an
elastic intermediate layer 3 against the inner lateral limiting surface of a
frame formed by two frame halves 4 and 5” (Ortwein, col. 3, ll. 15-18).
3. Ortwein discloses that the frame half 4 “rests against a first lateral wall 6L of
a trough 6” and the other frame half 5 “rests against the second lateral wall
6R of the trough, via a wedge 7” (Ortwein, col. 3, ll. 19-21).
4. Ortwein discloses that the elastic layer can be pre-stressed:
The infrastructure of the invention allows a prestressing
of the elastic padding provided between the rail and the
two frame halves. At first a certain preliminary stress is
caused by the setting of the wedge. A further preliminary
stress can be caused by using wedges of various width
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013