Appeal No. 1998-2169
Application No. 08/610,069
area for the conductive support. Therefore, the examiner
relies upon Honda as evidence that “the surface roughness is a
result effective variable for controlling interference” (page
7 of answer) and consequently, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have arrived at appellant’s index of surface area
upon optim-izing the result effective variable.
Appellant, at pages 8 and 9 of the principal brief,
offers calculations to demonstrate that when the D/R value of
Honda is 0.035 and 0.07, the values disclosed in the
reference, the corresponding indexes of surface area are 7.66
x 10-5 and 30.64 x 10-5, respectively, which values are well
below the lower limit of 0.01. The examiner does not refute
the accuracy of appellant’s calculations but mistakenly states
that the Honda D/R value of 0.07 gives an index of surface
area of 3.064 x 104 (page 7 of answer, last two lines.)
Manifestly, the value used by the examiner to support the
conclusion that D/R values of 0.035 or higher would include
values within the claimed range is an erroneous restatement of
the value calculated at page 9 of appellant’s principal brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007