Appeal No. 97-3199
Application No. 08/273,767
claimed, predicated upon the area of openings (apertures) and
total guide area would have simply involved the discovery of
optimum values for a result effective variable by one having
ordinary skill in this art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
Contrary to the argued position of appellants (main
brief, page 13), we concluded, supra, that the determination
of obstruction ratios, as set forth in each of claims 2 and 3,
would have been an obvious matter for one having ordinary
skill in the art when appellants’ invention was made.
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 8
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b)
based upon the Gilles document, with the rejection of claims
4, 6, and 8 likewise being affirmed since they stand or fall
with claim 1.
At the outset, it is important to recognize that claim 1
requires, inter alia, a guide “configuration”, with the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007