Appeal No. 1998-0717
Application 08/099,841
applied prior art references do not teach or suggest this
feature [brief,
pages 4-9]. The examiner responds that appellants’ definition
of the terms “part kind attribute” and “part type attribute”
are repugnant to the usual definitions of those terms.
According to the examiner, a broad reading of the claim
language is met by the collective teachings of the applied
prior art [answer,
pages 15-19]. Appellants respond that their definitions of
the noted terms are not repugnant to the usual meaning of
those terms, and appellants argue that the examiner has failed
to interpret these terms consistent with the specification
[reply brief].
After a careful consideration of the complete record,
we agree with the position argued by appellants. Although
appellants are guilty of arguing deficiencies in individual
references for teachings for which they are not being relied
on, the fundamental position argued by appellants is correct.
In our view, appellants’ description of “parts,” “part kind
attribute,” “part type attribute,” and “package” are certainly
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007