Appeal No. 1999-2103
Application No. 08/734,205
reference submitted by appellants in discussing the Studer
reference.
Appellants argue on pages 8 and 9 of their brief that
claim 18 is not anticipated by Studer because (1) Studer
"never mentions 'ridges' or any similar term at all" and (2)
even assuming that Studer shows "ridges" as claimed, Studer
does not show an elongated ridge having a "substantially
triangular" cross section, as required by claim 18.
Turning first to appellants' argument that Studer never
mentions "ridges" or any similar term, we note that a
reference does not fail as an anticipation merely because it
does not contain a description of the subject matter of the
appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis. In re May, 574 F.2d
1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978). Appellants'
specification (page 6) defines a ridge as having "a crest that
is at least one line, compared to the crest of the prior art
spikes which are a point or a circle (for a truncated cone,
for example)." From our perspective, even if appellants'
translation (page 2) of the French Studer reference is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007