Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
Amendment, Requester shows the "upper edge" extending horizontally on a
level with the upper edge of the seating surface. However, the proposed
edge location does not represent a discontinuity between two surfaces or the
boundary of a surface defined by its function or the boundary between two
surfaces as defined by a change in the angle between the two wall surfaces.
The upper edge of the seating portion 69.4 in Brahmbhatt does not extend all
the way across the surface 68 because the component 12 has point contact
with the seating portion 69.4 (col. 5, ll. 34-37). Thus, one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have been led to draw the "upper edge" as shown except
by hindsight in view of the claim language. In the annotated Figure 7 in
Respondent's Brief on Appeal, Requester shows the "edge" extending on a
slant from the top of seating portion 69.4 to a lower corner of the surface 70
which is part of surface 68. Again, the proposed edge does not represent a
discontinuity between two surfaces or the boundary of a surface defined by
its function or the boundary between two surfaces as defined by a change in
the angle between the two wall surfaces. The upper edge of the seating
portion 69.4 does not extend all the way across the surface 68 as drawn.
Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to draw the
"upper edge" as shown except by impermissible hindsight.
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013