Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
any visible lines, but which must be demarcated by edges somehow to define
where one bottom surface leaves off and the other begins (id. at 13).
Patent Owners do not respond to the Requester's arguments in their
Rebuttal Brief. Patent Owners suggest that an edge between two surfaces
requires a discontinuity; see Patent Owners' Rebuttal Br. 5 ("The Examiner
asserts that he is interpreting the inner first face 68 of Brahmbhatt as
comprising multiple surfaces, even thought [sic] there is no discontinuity
between such multiple surfaces."). At the oral argument, counsel for Patent
Owners stated that an "edge" requires a "visual" line. Patent Owners argue
that it is impossible to determine from Brahmbhatt's written description
where the Examiner's proposed first and second wall surfaces begin or end,
and a skilled artisan would not be able to locate the alleged edge because an
edge is not illustrated or described (Patent Owners' Rebuttal Br. 5-6).
The Examiner agrees with the Requester that it is consistent with the
'595 patent "to broadly interpret a single surface as comprising multiple
surfaces, even where there is no discontinuity between such mulitple
surfaces" (Answer 22). The Examiner also agrees with the Requester that
the '595 patent does not expressly define the term "edge," that the dictionary
definitions of an "edge" as a boundary do not require a structural mark, and
that the definitions are not inconsistent with the use of the term "edge" in the
'595 patent (Answer 24).
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013