Appeal 2007-2783
Reexamination 90/005,509
Patent 5,533,499
In claim 53, the specification does not provide support
for the adhesive void extending from one side of the truss to the
other. The disclosure identifies the void as being the area
covered by the pad. However, the Examiner is unable to locate
any support for the limitation that the pad extends from one side
to the other.
We have already determined above, in the context of an anticipation
rejection of claim 53, that the claim does not require the adhesive void to
extend exhaustingly from edge to edge in the truss. Accordingly, that the
Examiner can locate no support in the specification for an adhesive void that
extends exhaustingly from edge to edge in the truss is of no moment. The
specification discloses, in connection with Figure 6, a padded element 48
which extends somewhere between the side edges of the truss member. That
is sufficient written description for supporting the recitation that an adhesive
void extends between opposite portions of the side edges of the truss.
Of claims 19-48, the only independent claims are claims 23 and 35.
Claim 23 recites a truss of a single body “with a resilient member secured
therein.” Claim 35 recites a truss of a single body “with a resilient member
and a flexible strip of material secured therein.” The Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection is stated as follows (Final Rejection 3:22-24):
In claims 23 and 35, the device is claimed as a truss with
a resilient member and/or a flexible strip of material secured
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013