Appeal No. 1999-0406
Application 08/484,019
ordinary skill in the art “to make cavities or holes
encompassing the claimed depth and width since Friedheim
leaves it to one of ordinary skill in the art to make non-
uniform and randomly chosen depths and width of hole/cavities
for an improved vaporization of liquids” (final rejection,
page 4). In essence, the appellant, relying on the 37 CFR §
1.132 declarations of record, contends that this rejection is
unsound because the etched cavities disclosed by Friedheim
‘037 do not constitute “holes” and because the claimed subject
matter affords new and unexpected results as compared with the
Friedheim ‘037 subject matter.
The appellant’s position here is not persuasive. Under
the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the term, Friedheim’s 4
cavities certainly constitute “holes” as broadly recited in
claims 3, 5, 17, 18, 32 and 33 to the same extent that the
appellant’s disclosed structures 22 constitute holes. As for
the
4 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co.
1977) defines “holes” as meaning “an opening often forced into
or through a thing” or “a hollow place.”
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007