Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
Therefore we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 2 by Bronowicki.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 3 to 9 are rejected under this ground as being
obvious over Bronowicki in view of Brull at pages 3 and 4 of
the examiner’s answer. The examiner asserts, id. at page 4,
that "[i]t would have been obvious... to modify Bronowicki et
al., by using teachings of Brull to provide for various
superimposed geometry to trigger a nonuniform deformation for
an intended desirable use. Because such geometries cause the
material to be tested in a variety of shapes and effects for
more accurate procedure." Appellants argue, brief at page 13,
that "[n]either Bronowicki et al. nor Brull refer to the
generation of a global deformation field by the geometry of
the specimen, neither does Bronowicki et al. nor Brull refer
to the material to be tested having a secondary superimpose
[sic] geometry that produces nonuniform deformation. . .."
Regarding claim 3, the examiner responds, answer at page 6,
that the
"other two independent claims 3 and 6, simply adding
[sic] a secondary and a tertiary geometry. Such
criterion for provision to enhance a non uniform
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007