Appeal No. 1999-2684
Application No. 08/825,400
technical definition within the relevant art. Therefore, we accept the examiner’s
ordinary meaning of the term.
Appellants argue that the terms bumps and balls are used interchangeably within
the specification. (See brief at page 4.) We do not find this argument persuasive since
the language of claim 1 recites bumps and a ball cannot be synonymous with the
claimed bumps which are not round due to the flat, leveled tops. Therefore, appellants
have not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the prima facie case of anticipation and
we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Furthermore, the
rejections of claims 2-4 and 12 are similarly sustained since appellants have not
provided separate arguments for patentability.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007