Ex parte WONG - Page 6

          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).                              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007