Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We affirm.
Appellants have discussed the two grounds of rejection
separately in the brief. We do likewise.
35 U.S.C. § 102
The examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated
by Bronowicki by citing element 10 and col. 4 and line 14 of
Bronowicki at page 3 of the examiner’s answer. Appellants
argue, brief at page 11, that "[t]he device taught by
Bronowicki et al. [is] designed for use in low strain
situations whereas the Appellant’s [sic] claimed device is for
use in areas of high or large plasticity." Appellants also
argue, id., that “the structures taught by Bronowicki et al.
are all elastic, whereas the Appellant’s [sic] claimed device
defines large scale plasticity. The device taught by
Bronowicki et al. is an empirical determination where the
Appellant’s [sic] claimed device is quantitative in nature.”
Appellants also contend, id., that Bronowicki refers to “a
structural deformation or elongation, by which is meant a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007