Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
Anticipation
Grouping of claims
Patent Owners do not argue the separate patentability of dependent
claims 2 and 5-11. Thus, the rejection of claims 2 and 5-11 stands or falls
with the rejection of independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
The rejection of independent claim 16 stands or falls by itself.
The rejection
The issues in the anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 involve
the limitations of a "first wall surface" and a "second wall surface extending
upward from an upper edge of said first wall surface." The issues in the
anticipation rejection of independent claim 16 involve the limitations of a
"first wall surface" and a "second wall surface extending from said first wall
surface in a direction away from said first surface of said main body."
The Requester proposed the following reading of the "first wall
surface," "second wall surface," and "upper edge of said first wall surface"
in claim 1 onto Figure 7 of Brahmbhatt:
The ordinary meaning of "surface" is merely "the outer
face or exterior of an object." [Webster's New World College
Dictionary (3rd Edition, 1997).] Figure 7 of Brahmbatt [sic]
'486, and the relevant portion of the specification thereof, depict
and disclose inclined component contact portions 69.2, each
having a guide-in portion 69.3, a seating portion 69.4, and a
subordinate portion 69.5 below the seating portion. These three
portions may be characterized as "surfaces", since they are part
of the exterior of the component support member. These
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013