Appeal No. 1998-0338
Application No. 08/350,865
12 through 13 and 16 through 18 as standing or falling
together with claim 12 as the representative claim; claims 1
through 8, 10 and 19 through 22 as standing or falling
together with claim 1 as the representative claim; claim 6
separately; and claims 14 through 16 as standing or falling 2
together with claim 14 as the representative claim.
With respect to claim 12, the Examiner indicates that APA
(Figure 2) teaches the claimed invention with mesh oxide 15
being the “means for transferring stress” (answer-page 5).
Appellant argues that the claimed “means for transferring
stress” must be limited to that described in the specification
and equivalents thereof, citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6
and case law (brief-page 6 and 7). Appellant complains that
the Examiner never stated a proper 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph
6, analysis (brief-page 8). Furthermore, Appellant argues,
“That the mesh oxide of the embodiment of Figure 3 and the
mesh oxide of the prior art Figure 2 both transfer stress,
does not make them ‘the same’”. (Brief-pages 7 and 8.)
2Claim 14 is being treated as argued separately, and
claims 15 and 16 depend from 14.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007