Appeal No. 1997-0123
Application 08/368,926
Nakamura and the admitted prior art. There is nothing in the
disclosure of Nakamura or the admitted prior art to indicate
that minimization of material waste, the problem addressed by
Suetake, was ever a concern. It is our opinion that the only
basis for applying Suetake’s teachings to the combination of
Nakamura and the admitted prior art comes from an improper
attempt to reconstruct Appellants’ invention in hindsight.
We note that, in the responsive arguments portion at page
7 of the Answer, the Examiner attempts to respond to
Appellants’ arguments concerning Suetake’s lack of concern
with a strain relief problem by making reference to Suetake’s
mention of the term “yield.” The Examiner proceeds to supply
a dictionary definition of the term “yield” as relating to the
bending of an element under physical pressure. We are in
agreement, however, with Appellants’ arguments (Reply Brief,
pages 2 and 3) that the Examiner’s interpretation of Suetake’s
use of the term “yield” is in error. It is clear from our
reading of Suetake’s disclosure that the term “yield” is
intended to relate to an amount of useful material resulting
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007