Appeal No. 1998-1478
Application No. 08/517,604
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants'
Brief, Reply Brief, and four Supplemental Reply Briefs for
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claim, the applied prior
art, and the respective positions articulated by appellants
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will
reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 2.
Throughout the numerous Examiner's Answers, the examiner
asserts that he is applying the "normal usage" of various
terms in the claim. We disagree. As stated by appellants
(Brief, page 6), "the [e]xaminer has improperly attempted to
change the normal usage of various terms in order to make the
prior art device meet the terms of the claims [sic, claim]."
For example, the examiner contends (Answer, page 5, First
Supplemental Answer, page 2, Second Supplemental Answer, page
3, and Third Supplemental Answer, page 4) that the rectangular
block
between magnetic flux concentrators 22 and 22 constitutes a1 2
ridge because it is an "upper section" relative to the
insulating material below the concentrators, and thus meets
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007