Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
is not claimed and therefore not pertinent to the very broadly recited feature in independent
claim 27 that the skirt only have “a serrated-rolled edge.” Therefore, appellant’s argument
regarding an accidental anticipation under 35 USC § 102 is misplaced. There is no active
teaching away in Ishii of serrated-rolled edges to the extent recited in independent claim
27 on appeal. Furthermore, we see no merit to appellant’s characterization that the edges
of Ishii’s horn 3 are fairly characterized as having fluted edges, since the claim does not
otherwise distinguish over the showings in this reference. Claim 27 also does not require
that the edges be uniform, continuous, smooth and gradual. Therefore, since appellant has
not presented any other arguments with respect to the rejection of method claim 27 and its
dependent claims 28 and 29, we sustain this rejection under 35 USC § 102 of these
claims as being anticipated by Ishii.
Turning next to the various claims under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by
Senne, we also reverse the rejection of independent claims 17 and 20 as being
anticipated by Senne, but sustain the rejection of claim 27 as being anticipated by this
reference.
Again, it is noted that the independent claim 27 merely requires that the skirt have
“a serrated rolled edge.” This is clearly shown in at least figures 2, 8, 12 and 13, which
depict that the outer edge or outer end of the respective series of blades or strips A, when
assembled, provide a series of serrated-rolled edges. Additionally, note page 2, lines 18-
20 which state “I prefer to bend the free ends of the blades at their outer ends back upon
the body of the blade in a circular form.” Appellant’s argument with respect to this rejection
at pages 6 and 7 of the principal Brief on appeal and appellant’s second Reply Brief at
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007