Appeal No. 96-2127
Application 08/158,054
of the brief that Christensen does suggest the use of sectioning
planes that are parallel with respect to each other, but continue
to argue that with respect to claim 5 this reference fails to
show the use of solid members that are generally uniform in
thickness. If they are generally parallel with respect to each
other as admitted with respect to claim 4, they would be
generally uniform in thickness to the extent recited. The
showings beginning at Fig. 10 as well indicate the parallel
nature of the subsections in Christensen as well as their general
uniform thickness.
As to appellants’ discussion in the paragraph bridging pages
3 and 4 of the brief, there is little relevance of the objects of
the present invention as argued directly reflected in the subject
matter of the claims on appeal. In any event, patents utilized
as references are not limited to what patentees regard as their
own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned.
In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). In the context of the rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102, no claim listed by the examiner relates to
reassembling by bonding as argued at the top of page 4 of the
brief. Claim 8 does recite a feature of adhesive bonding, but
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007