Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
the third portion is longer than the first or second portions
as disclosed in Figures 1 and 3. That the third portion's
first spur extends beyond the surface anywhere from tubular
enclosure 16, we consider it elongated to the extent broadly
recited in claim 22. There is no bounds or reference point to
the term “elongated.”
Moreover, the Figure 5 showing in Hudson is stated to be
an alternative embodiment to that shown in Figure 3. Figure 5
clearly shows that the region L3 is longer in an elongated
sense than the similar dimensions L2 and L1 of the
perpendicularly extending duct 32 in Figure 3. The discussion
at column 5 with respect to the Figure 3 embodiment clearly
defines in Hudson the width dimensions as being depicted by W
and the length dimensions being conveyed in terms of L of the
duct 32. Therefore, the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is sustained.
As to the rejection of dependent claim 28, it is
difficult to understand the examiner's reasoning as it applies
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007