Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
tangentially connected with respect to objects adjacent other
drawing objects. There are compelling repetitive teachings in
Shikata’s specification against any overlap among the area
portion of the respective drawing objects, but according to
this formula at Fig. 15B some minor overlap may exist
according to the actual value the artisan would choose to
prescribe for the value of H . In this case, should it exist,
1
there would be no overlapping of “areas” as we understand it
is intended in claim 1 and from appellants’ disclosure, but
only an overlap of edge portions or edge regions.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007