Appeal No. 1997-2840
Application No. 08/265,971
matter described in the “INVENTION DISCLOSURE” attachment of
the affidavit. The appellant, of course, regards this subject
matter as corresponding to the method defined by appealed
claim 5 wherein the generating and fastening steps are
separately and sequentially performed. On the other hand, the
examiner considers the subject matter of the “INVENTION
DISCLOSURE” to constitute a method in which these steps are
performed simultaneously rather than separately and
sequentially.
Having carefully assessed the respective positions
advanced by the appellant and the examiner concerning this
matter, we reach the determination that the appellant’s
interpretation of the “INVENTION DISCLOSURE” is well supported
and therefore persuasive for essentially the reasons set forth
in the brief and reply brief. Moreover, we agree with the
appellant that the portions of this “INVENTION DISCLOSURE”
which the examiner regards as supporting his position are, for
the most part, merely statements of a possible use (i.e., the
simultaneous practice of the generating/hole-making and
fastening/sewing functions) that ultimately proved to be not
possible.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007