Appeal No. 96-2127
Application 08/158,054
that is encompassed within the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We are satisfied that the examiner’s correlation of the features
in the responsive arguments portion of the answer satisfies the
principal argument presented by appellants with respect to the
§ 102 rejection that Christensen does section a graphic model to
facilitate carving, and independently carve a solid member for
each graphic member and secure the carved members together to
create a unitary part as argued at the middle of page 4 of the
brief.
As to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, appellants’
initial remarks, beginning at the bottom of page 4, do not
directly relate to the features of dependent claims 2 and 8 to
11. Indeed, the statement that the appellants traverse the
rejection of these claims for the same reasons recited above in
connection with the § 102 rejection is misplaced for the same
reasons expressed earlier. While on the one hand, appellants
admit that Christensen suggests the use of one or more vertical
and horizontal planes in the computer sectioning as it applies to
dependent claim 11 on appeal, appellants also take the position
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007