Appeal No. 97-3757
Application 08/298,351
said lower and upper end portions of said third part
being defined by first and second radiuses, respec-
tively, wherein centers of said first and second
radiuses are disposed on opposite sides of a reference
plane extending between said upper and lower ends of
said third part.
Here again, we find no specific antecedent basis for this
language in the specification, but note that in Fig. 16, third4
part 83 is concave with a radius R at its upper part, and is
5R
convex with another radius (unnumbered) at its lower part. No
such structure is found in Claydon’s Fig. 10, and the examiner
has not identified any which would meet this limitation.
The rejection of claim 64 will therefore not be sustained.
Claim 75
This claim recites, in part:
an exteriorly convexly-shaped annular support
comprising an annular supporting surface, wherein a
reference plane substantially contains said annular
supporting surface
* * * * *
wherein a vertical distance of a radially outermost
part of said center panel relative to said reference
plane is significantly greater than a vertical distance
of said upper end of said second part relative to said
reference plane.
Fig. 10 of Claydon does not meet these limitations because
in Claydon, the radially outermost part of central panel 4 and
the upper end of the second part (annular wall 5) coincide, and
See note 2, supra.4
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007