Appeal No. 96-4152
Application 08/177,391
the web" in claim 18 refers to. In this regard, appellants’
argument on page 6 of the brief that one of ordinary in the
art would understand the term "web" as used herein to
inherently have "holes" and therefore would understand what is
being claimed is speculative. In light of the above, we will
sustain the standing § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claim 18.
We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to
appellants’ use of the wording "at opposite sides thereof" in
claims 11 and 16. This terminology is found in each of these
claims within the context of the limitation "an electric
heater in the form of a plate having two surfaces at opposite
sides thereof." Clearly,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have no trouble
understanding what is meant by two surfaces at opposite sides
of
a plate. Hence, we will not sustain the § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 11 to 17.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections
Bloom, the examiner’s primary reference, pertains to an
electrically regenerated diesel particulate trap. The trap
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007