Appeal No. 2001-0786
Application No. 09/089,575
alone, and the patentability of claim 8 stands or falls with the
patentability of claim 2. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). However,
for reasons set forth hereinafter, the patentability of claims 3
and 4 stands with the patentability of claim 1.
Discussion
1. Rejection of claim 1
The claim language at issue in this rejection is as follows:
[A] compound feed section positioned within or between
the baseplate and the die body, the compound feed
section incorporating feed conduits . . . being angled
away from the flow axes of the baseplate feedholes over
at least a portion of their length.
Appellant argues that the feed conduits in the compound feed
section of Duerr are bored at the same angle as the die baseplate
feedholes. Therefore, the feed conduits in Duerr do not have
flow axes which angle away from the flow axes of the baseplate
feedholes. See Brief, pp. 5-6.
Relying on Figure 11 in Duerr, the examiner maintains that
(Answer, p. 3):
[T]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
allows for a portion [of the] conduit wall or a portion
of the conduit structure to be angled away from the
flow axes of the baseplate feedholes. Since only a
portion of the conduit needs to be angled away from the
flow axes of the baseplate feedholes, the central flow
axes of the feed conduit in the compound feed section
does not need to be different than that of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007