Appeal No. 2000-2108
Application No. 09/075,943
not be appellant's claimed subject matter. More specifically,
appellant urges (brief, page 4) that neither of the applied
references discloses a guide plate having an upper slanted
portion with a second hole. Rather, appellant observes that
they both rely upon a notch in the upper portion of their
respective guide plates (see 52 of Lazar and 30 of Carroll),
which notches appellant perceives would operate in a different
manner than appellant's second hole. We do not find this
argument persuasive. Like the examiner (answer, page 5), we
consider that the term "hole," when given its broadest
reasonable construction, would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art to encompass an opening or notch
like that seen in both Carroll and Lazar. Moreover, while
appellant has asserted that such a notch would operate in a
different manner than appellant's second hole, we see no
reason why this would be so, and appellant has provided none.
Appellant's second line argument is that in neither of
the applied references does the guide plate include an upper
slanted portion "having lateral sides being formed into winged
guide portions," as required in the claims on appeal. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007