Appeal No. 1999-2795
Application 09/046,111
In claim 1, the term "crushed areas" indicates a
process of making the areas by "crushing." "Crush" is
defined as "to squeeze or force by pressure so as to alter
or destroy structure," Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
(G. & C. Merriam Co. 1977). Therefore, "crushed areas"
indicates a definite structure as well as a method of
making. The Examiner erred in failing to give patentable
weight to the structure of "crushed areas." The Examiner
also erred in stating that "[t]he only difference between
the holes of Smith and 'crushed areas' or 'cracks' of the
claimed invention lies in the manner in which they are
generated, not in their structural function" (EA4). It is
the structure, not the function of the structure which is at
issue. The notches in Smith are defined by an absence of
material, not material which has been altered in structure
by squeezing, and, thus, the notches do not have the same
structure as "crushed areas." Therefore, claim 1 is not
anticipated by Smith. The anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 6 is reversed. The obviousness rejection
does not cure the deficiencies with respect to claim 1 and,
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007