Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
to be “oriented vertically” as claimed. As depicted in FIG. 9
and described on pages 10 and 16 of the specification, the
grooves line in the faces of tetrahedron and thus are at a
substantial angle to the vertical. Accordingly, the language
in claim 7 when read in light of the specification results in
an inexplicable inconsistency that renders it indefinite.
In summary:
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 under the judi-
cially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Waters is affirmed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of (1) claim 2 as
being unpatentable over Waters in view of Waters and
Kiselewski, (2) claims 3, 10 and 16 as being unpatentable over
Waters in view of Viner, (3) claim 4 as being unpatentable
over Waters in view of Leeds, (4) claims 5 and 6 as being
unpatentable over Harza, (5) claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable over Harza in view of Martin and Kiselewski, (6)
claims 11-13 as being unpatentable over Waters in view of
Martin, Kiselewski and Viner and (7) claims 14 and 15 as being
30
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007