Appeal No. 95-2413
Application 07/936,865
is correct, figure 14B shows a uniform erosion profile for
R > 2, which meets claim 36 since R is arbitrary.0 0
Sixth, assuming that the actual erosion profile produced
by Suzuki, Sato '375, and Sato '374 is not uniform, we have
already noted that the actual erosion profile can still be
described by a function >(R) and the total arc length must, by
definition, be proportional to >(R)xR. For example, even the
discontinuous function in appellants' figure 3C for an annular
magnet can be described by a function >(R) and the total arc
length must inherently be proportional to >(R)xR. The claim
language that ">(R) is a selected function corresponding to a
desired erosion profile" (emphasis added) does not distinguish
the claim over the prior art where the actual erosion profile
is broadly considered to be the desired erosion profile.
Appellants argue that "the actual case" magnet of FIG. 6
does not conform to the limitations of Claim 36 and is merely
an interpolative design " (Br8). Appellants do not explain
what limitation of claim 36 is not met by the actual magnet of
Suzuki. Claim 36 is an apparatus claim and does not recite
how the magnet arrangement has been designed, by interpolation
or otherwise.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007