Appeal No. 1998-1850
Application No. 08/596,613
“an aspect ratio greater than about 4 to 1,” when following the combined teachings of the
references.
In this regard, we note that appellants mention (Brief, page 8) claiming aspect ratios
of 4:1 to 5:1. Although appellants have ostensibly chosen to rely on the limitations of
independent claim 1, we note that instant claim 8 recites that the aspect ratio is “in a range
of between about 4 to 1 and about 5 to 1.” For substantially the same reasons for our
conclusion that an aspect ratio of “about 4 to 1” does not distinguish over the prior art, we
also conclude that an aspect ratio of 5 to 1, or “about” 5 to 1, also fails to distinguish. That
is, the combined teachings of Havemann and Tsunohara, based on the evidence before
us, would have led the artisan to aspect ratios of 5 to 1 or about 5 to 1.
We have also considered appellants’ additional argument on page 6 of the Reply
Brief, disagreeing with the examiner’s finding of what structures define the “aspect ratio” in
the Havemann device. Even accepting appellants’ arguments as accurately reflecting the
facts of Havemann, we do not see, and appellants have not persuasively explained, how
claim 1 might set forth a distinction over the structures disclosed by Havemann, as
improved by the teachings of Tsunohara.
Appellants rely on the arguments in regard to the combination of Havemann and
Tsunohara, as applied against claim 1, in answer to the section 103 rejection of claim 12
over Havemann, Tsunohara, and Sheng, and in answer to the section 103 rejection of
claims 3, 4, 9, 41, and 42 over Havemann, Tsunohara, and the APA. (See Brief, pages 8-
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007