Appeal No. 97-2222
Application 08/380,661
of claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Atwell.
Turning to the rejection of claims 15 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Atwell, the appellant
argues that Atwell’s elongated elements or nails are not
“beveled asymmetrically” as claimed. On the other hand, the
examiner contends that
The right edge forming the tip of the nail in each
said figures is shown to extend a slightly shorter
distance towards the head of the nail than the one
on the left thus making the edge where the right
side of the tip meets the shaft slightly more angled
and hence the tip asymmetrically beveled.
Furthermore, nails are
mass produced with the pointed ends being formed
thereon in a less than precise cutting step which
leads to at least a slight asymmetric beveling.
Exact symmetry is not cost effective and generally
not critical. Since Atwell is silent on the
formation of the nail ends it would be a reasonable
assumption that the ends were formed in the
“conventional” manner thus making them
asymmetrically beveled. [Emphasis ours.]
We will not support the examiner’s position. Atwell
neither states nor clearly shows that the ends of his nails
are asymmetrically beveled. As to the examiner’s “assumption”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007