Appeal No. 1998-2971
Application No. 08/690,274
7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), appellants argue (Brief,
page 3) that “Hornbeck Fig.4a shows the vertical portion
(156-158) of the support arms extending above the plane of the
bolometer and these same vertical portions are indicated in
Figs.9a-e by the square at the ends of the support arms in
plan view.” The examiner’s reply (Answer, page 5) to the
appellants’ argument is that:
First, the claim does not require the
totality of each of the plurality of
support arms to be between the bolometers
and the substrate, and therefore does not
preclude some portion to be elsewhere.
Second, the claim does not make any reference
to the plane of the bolometer, and the
bolometer need not be planar or parallel
to the substrate.
We agree with the examiner that claim 1 on appeal does not
preclude a portion of the support arms extending above the
bolometer, and that claim 1 is silent as to a “plane of the
bolometer.” In the absence of any other argument, we will
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1. The
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2 through 4 and 7
through 9 is likewise sustained because appellants have chosen
to let these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (Brief, page
3).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007