Appeal No. 1998-0338
Application No. 08/350,865
The Examiner responds, “. . . the mesh oxide layers are
one and the same. Therefore, the Appellant’s disclosed prior
art discloses a ‘means for transferring stress’ in the same
exact manner as the claimed invention as describe[d] in claim
12.” (Answer-page 9.)
We agree with the Examiner. There is nothing in claim 12
that requires the oxide to be different than that in APA.
Appellant’s argument that they are not “the same” just because
they both “transfer stress” misses the point. All that is
claimed is a “means for transferring stress” (emphasis added),
not a difference in mesh oxides.
Appellant would have us read claim 12 as including
openings in the lower metal plate (i.e., the first metal
plate, directly over the foundation layer), and that such
openings are not shown in APA. This is reasoned by the fact
that claim 14, dependent from claim 12, defines the “means for
transferring stress” as being in contact with the foundation
layer. This would require an opening in the lower metal
plate, not shown in APA (reply brief-page 4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007