Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse both the anticipation rejection and
also the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4.
Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, a circular blank
zone. Appellant argues (Brief, page 3) that Young fails to
disclose a circular blank zone. The examiner (Answer, page 3)
points to element 34, which has a circular inner circumference
and a substantially square outer circumference. As shown in
appellant's drawings, appellant clearly intends for "circular
blank zone" to mean a ring with circular inner and outer
circumferences. Thus, as interpreted in light of the
specification, the claimed circular blank zone is not met by
Young's element 34.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that it "would have
been obvious or within the level of one of ordinary skill in
the mirror art . . . to modify the entire geometric shape of
element (34) of Young to be circular, due to the fact that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007