Ex parte WONG - Page 5




                 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