Appeal No. 95-3900 Page 5
Application No. 07/978,030
et al[. to] provide the structure for defining the 'integral
concave regions', shown in cross section in Figure 4." (Paper
24 at 7.) Although we must give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
we do not consider it reasonable to interpret "concave
regions" to include the structure shown in Wildey's Figure 3,
which is a single concavity at best. Consequently, we do not
find a preponderance of evidence supporting the examiner's
case for anticipation of claim 9. Dependent claims 2-7 and 10
are, likewise, not anticipated.
In rejecting claim 9 as obvious in view of Rammos, the
examiner relies on the embodiment of
Rammos' Figure 17 and Figure 18 (right)
for the basic structural elements of the
claim. This embodiment includes a lower
plate or housing 66 with
concavities 65, a printed5
5 See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997), for the breadth of the word
"integral" absent a positive showing by the appellant that
"integral" means "one-piece". Appellants have made no such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007