Appeal No. 1999-0529
Application 08/588,800
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see
37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
Claims 6, 11 and 12 recite a spaced crossbar which
extends laterally between flanking wall portions. Claim 10
recites specific dimensions of the width, height and pitch of
the walls. With respect to claims 6, 11 and 12, the examiner
asserts that crossbars would be an obvious design expedient
for increasing mechanical strength. With respect to claim 10,
the examiner finds that the claimed width, height and pitch of
the flanking walls would have resulted from routine
experimentation by the artisan [answer, pages 5-6]. With
respect to all of these claims, appellants argue that the
claimed crossbars and the claimed dimensions are not mere
obvious design expedients, and that neither reference teaches
the specific details of these claims [brief, pages 9-10]. The
examiner simply repeats his position on these questions
[answer, page 7].
We find ourselves compelled to agree with appellants
on this rejection. The examiner has the responsibility to
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007