Appeal No. 2000-0289 Page 7
Application No. 08/753,542
the blades 20, 22 toward the top of the blades. From this we
conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
term "narrow" as used in claim 8 consistent with the
specification is that the flattened edges extend only a small
portion of the distance between the top and bottom of the
blades. Clearly the flattened edges disclosed in Caneavri
(see e.g., Figure 5) and Griffin (see e.g., Figure 5) are not
"narrow" flattened edges as required by claim 8.
Since all the limitations of claims 8 to 10 and 14 are
not disclosed in either Caneavri or Griffin for the reasons
set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
8 to 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of 11 to 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have reviewed the reference to Harvey but find nothing
therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Caneavri and
Griffin discussed above. That is, the combined teachings of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007