Appeal No. 96-0625
Application 08/044,113
interprets conductors 74R, 74L, 130, and 132 as being first and second feed lines (Answer, page 4).
We conclude that Fassett does not teach the "orthogonal" limitation of claim 9, since the first and
second feed lines are required to be "orthogonal" to each other, and not within 45 degrees from each
other.
Lastly, we note appellant’s means-plus-function argument pertaining to claim 15 (Reply Brief,
pages 4 to 5). Appellant avers that claim 15's "spacer means" as described in the specification is not
taught by Watanabe. This type of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, argument is not properly raised at
such a late point in the prosecution. Appellant failed to raise this argument in the original Brief, and such
an argument is not made in response to a new issue raised by the examiner in the Answer.
Accordingly, appellant has waived this argument and we will not consider it at this late stage.
Therefore, we conclude that appellant’s claims 9, 10, and 15 to 17 are not anticipated by either
Watanabe or Fassett, because the important recited feature of appellant’s claims on appeal of a
coupling device smaller than, and spaced from, first and second cavity walls is neither expressly nor
inherently disclosed by either of the applied references.
In view of the foregoing, the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 9, 10, and 15 to 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007