Appeal 2007-2783
Reexamination 90/005,509
Patent 5,533,499
Iriarte, Schaar, and Davis. However, claims 7, 9, and 25 have not been
argued separately from claims from which they depend, i.e., claims 1 and 24.
The patentee asserts three arguments, each based on a separate claim
feature, with respect to this rejection. The first applies to claims 19, 20, 23,
24, 26-32, and 34, and is based on the limitation in these claims that the
resilient member is separated from a side edge of the truss by more than the
width of the resilient member. The second applies to claims 34, 51, 54, and
55, and is based on the limitation in these claims that the intermediate
segment of the truss is narrower in width than the spaced apart end surfaces
of the truss. The third applies to claims 56 and 30, and is based on the
limitation in these claims that the truss body is of plastic construction.
With respect to the first argument, the patentee’s specification does
not describe what benefits or advantages can be achieved by having the
resilient member separated from an edge of the truss by more than the width
of the resilient member.2 The patentee also submitted no declaration
testimony from anyone with at least ordinary skill in the art explaining what
2 We find no description in the specification for the feature that a resilient
member is separated from an edge of the truss by more than the width of the
resilient member, although the claims have not been rejected by the
Examiner as lacking written description on that basis. The illustration in
Figure 1 actually shows the opposite, i.e., a distance of separation from the
edge that is less than the width of a resilient member.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013