Appeal No. 96-2127
Application 08/158,054
appears to automatically assume, for example, that the carving
step of clause (c) is performed as a physical operation. It does
not appear to be so in the reference relied upon by the examiner,
yet the breadth of the recitation in claim 1 can be interpreted
either as a physical step or a step performed in an automated
part modeling operation. Indeed, such is consistent with
appellants’ description of Fig. 1 as just noted at page 5 of the
specification. Much of the same can be said of step (d) of
securing. It appears that appellants’ disclosed invention
involves the physical securing of the carved solid members
together, yet the claim does not require such a physical securing
operation and the reference relied upon and part of the reasoning
of the examiner does not appear to require a physical securing
operation. Thus, when all is said and done, many of the
positions articulated by appellants in the brief are not
persuasive.
We will not repeat the examiner’s responsive arguments
position which appear to directly address many of the arguments
raised by appellants in the arguments portion of the brief. On
the one hand, appellants appear to admit at the bottom of page 3
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007