Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
“directly on” is broadly analogous to “supported by” or “supported on.”
Office Action 2; Answer 5. Appellants contend Anderson’s lamps 34 “are
disposed over, and spaced away from” dome 14, and not supported thereon.
Appellants argue lamps 34 are not “provided directly on” the dome because
the limitation “directly” means “without intervening space” such that “the
heater is supported by the transparent plate, without any intervening space.”
Br. 7; Reply Br.6 2-3.
We agree with Appellants that the subject claim limitation requires
that it is the heater which is” directly on” the transparent plate, wherein the
term “directly” is used consistent with the disclosure in the Specification and
with the common, dictionary meaning thereof.7 See Specification 7-8 and
Fig. 1. We further agree with Appellants that Anderson’s lamps 34 are the
heaters and are removed from the surface of upper and lower domes 14,16.
The Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in this art would
situate Anderson’s lamps 34 directly on upper and/or lower domes 14,16.
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness, we
reverse the grounds of rejection of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C.
5 The Examiner should consider the issue of the compliance of claim 17
with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, upon further prosecution of the
appealed claims subsequent to the disposition of this appeal.
6 We refer to the first Reply Brief filed March 7, 2005, which was
appropriately noted by the Examiner in the communication mailed March
17, 2005. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.41(a)(1) and 41.43(a)(1) (September 2004).
We observe the second Reply Brief filed July 25, 2005, duplicates the first
Reply Brief. The second Reply Brief was noted by the Examiner with
respect to the filing date of the first Reply Brief in the communication
mailed October 17, 2006.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013