Appeal No. 1998-0159
Application 08/410,029
Appellants argue:
There is no reference in the ‘063 patent to a
possible alternative geometry for the ferrule
capillary...... Considerations of alternative
capillary geometries and the interaction with the
ferrule base are not disclosed nor suggested by the
‘063 patent. (Brief, page 4)
We totally agree with Appellants. Thus, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and likewise claims 2
through 8 which depend therefrom and include the same unmet
polygonal limitation.
With respect to independent claim 9, we note that
the polygonal collar of claim 1 is not recited. Instead, a
collar “having at least one flat side thereon” is recited.
Although neither the Examiner nor Appellants have commented on
this broader rendition of the invention, we find the Examiner
has similarly failed to state a prima facie case for the
rejection. That being the case, Appellants’ lack of rebuttal
is moot, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 9.1
At page 5 of their brief Appellants discuss the
1 We also note that the drawings do not illustrate the
claim 9 variation, nor is there any language in the
specification indicating other than a polygonal shape.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007