Appeal No. 1998-0269
Application No. 08/396,645
recitations in the appealed claims and to focus upon only the
“manipulative steps” recited in these claims. For example,
the examiner states “it has been long held that to be entitled
to weight in method claims, the recited structural
limitations, i.e., shape of particular structured device, must
affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not amount to
the mere claiming of a use of such a particular structure as
is the instant case” (answer, page 4). However, we do not
perceive any recitation in the appealed claims which may be
properly ignored, and the examiner points to none
specifically. Moreover, from our perspective, it is precisely
the method steps recited in appealed claim 11 which Schrenk
does not teach and would not have suggested.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 102/section 103 rejection of claim 11 based
on the Schrenk reference.
The Chisholm reference also fails to anticipate the
method defined by appealed claim 11 for reasons analogous to
those set forth above with respect to the Schrenk reference.
That is, Chisholm simply does not disclose a method which
includes the steps recited in and required by this claim. It
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007