Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
have repeatedly noted that the amendment was fully
supported “as will be readily apparent upon review of
the description and drawings (especially Figs. 1 and 3)
of the disclosure.” The appellants fail to understand
what further support is necessary. It seems
unfortunate that the appellants must teach the Examiner
that the drawings are considered to be a part of the
disclosure and as such can provide support for claims
and amendments. A simple review of Figs. 1 and 3 by
the Examiner will reveal the support for the last three
lines of claim 23, e.g. the neck engaging portion and
interconnection formed in (substantially) the same
plane. [Amended reply brief, page 21.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellants’ arguments. The last
two lines of claim 23 expressly require that the neck engaging6
portion and the interconnection be “formed in the same plane.”
Noting that a “plane” has no width, we are of the opinion that
this limitation would require the center lines of the neck
engaging portion and the interconnection to be coextensive. As
the examiner has noted, there is no express statement in the
specification that the neck engaging portion and the
interconnection are formed in the same plane. Viewing Fig. 3 of
the drawings, it is readily apparent that the center lines of the
flange 11 and the interconnection 26 fall in spaced apart or
parallel planes. This being the case, we agree with the examiner
6Reference to specific lines in the claims in this decision
is with respect to the lines of the claims as they appear in the
appendix to the appellants’ brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007