Appeal 2006-1989
Application 09/772,278
Patent 5,996,948
B. Claim 1 - Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s case
First, Appellant argues at pages 7-8 of the Brief that the Examiner has
erred because the claimed “offset” is a lateral displacement and Buff only
teaches a longitudinal displacement. That is, claim 1 is patentable because
Buff fails to teach offsets from the lateral sides (short axis). We disagree.
Findings of Fact 4-6 and Appellant’s Figures 1-3 contradict
Appellant’s argument. Appellant describes each leg 16 as “U” shaped with
two sides 19. Each side 19 is described as including an offset 30 which
causes a lateral displacement. Figures 1-3 clearly show a first side 19 of
each leg is attached to a long axis side of a rim and a second side 19 of each
leg is attached to a short axis side of the rim. Thus, Appellant’s disclosed
lateral displacement includes in a longitudinal direction. Appellant’s
Specification never limits the term “lateral” to describing the short axis side.
Rather, Appellant’s Specification only uses “lateral” in the broader sense of
sideways from either the long axis or short axis.
Second, at pages 8-9 of the Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner has
erred because:
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013