Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
height should be increased to resist twisting (main brief,
page 8 and reply brief, pages 2 and 5). However, we note in
comparing the (h) and (w) values in the table of Garrett
(columns 3 and 4) with the length and widths values in
appellants' TABLES I AND II (page 6 of specification) that, as
is the case with Garrett (position 16), appellants' lengths
and widths both increase leading to section 4-4.
Additionally, the argument (main brief, pages 8 and 9)
addressing a "boxier and more rectangular shape" derived from
decreasing height and increasing width is seen to be relevant
only to the claims whose rejection we have not sustained. As
to the McMillan declaration, we note that appellants' argument
relying thereon (main brief, page 11) references claims which
describe the combination of a minimum width and a minimum W/L
ratio, the rejection of which claims we have not sustained.
In the matter of the argument addressed to claims 4, 6, 9, 21,
and 24 (main brief, pages 11 and 12), we do not share
appellants' point of view that the Garrett patent would not
have been suggestive of the claimed string width and ratio of
string width to string length. Consistent with the view
articulated above, we are of the opinion, based upon the
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007