Appeal 2007-2783
Reexamination 90/005,509
Patent 5,533,499
“therein”. The specification does not support these structures
being “in” the truss.
The rationale is believed to be incorrect. The specification discloses truss
member 16 as “including a flexible strip of material” (Specification col.
3:43-44) and “includes resilient means 26” (Specification col. 3:55). Thus,
the specification describes the flexible strip of material as well as the
resilient means both as a component of the truss. Resilient means 26 is
described as including a resilient band (Specification col. 3:56-57). Nothing
unusual or unpredictable has been shown by the Examiner with regard to a
difference between a resilient band and a resilient member. Thus, the
specification describes a resilient member as a component of the truss. The
patentee is correct that what are described as component parts of the truss
are necessarily described as being “in” the truss.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 19-48 and 53 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, cannot be sustained.
The Obviousness Rejections
a. The Prima Facie Case
The Examiner rejected claims 19, 20, 23, 24, 26-32, 34, 51, 54, 55,
and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iriarte. The Examiner
rejected claims 7, 9, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013