Appeal No. 1998-0874
Application 08/318,513
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 3 based
on the collective teachings of Todome, Okada and Hube only.
The examiner’s analysis of the references and reasons for
determining obviousness of the claimed invention are set forth
on pages 5-6 of the answer. With respect to representative,
independent claim 1, appellants argue that the examiner has
incorrectly asserted that Hube teaches the “continuous range
of variation” as recited in claim 1. More specifically,
appellants argue that the collective teachings of the applied
references do not suggest a continuous range of variation of
the sub-area according to one or two size-determining points
[brief, pages 5-7]. The examiner responds that the limitation
“continuous range of variation” reads on the teaching of Hube
[answer, page 13].
We agree with the position argued by appellants.
Although we find the examiner’s combination of Todome, Okada
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007