(Paper 55 at 9). Specifically, Bouzida argues that since the
examiner’s statement indicates that Bouzida claims 1, 2, 7, 13,
15 and 16, directed to two angled louver arrangements, were
determined to correspond to the count, then the examiner
interpreted the count as claiming a two angled louver
arrangement. This argument was not presented in connection with
Bouzida’s preliminary motion 1. Furthermore, as stated above, we
are not bound by an examiner’s decision. Lastly, the examiner
did refer to Bouzida’s claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 15 and 16 as broader
in scope than the count. Thus, it is possible that the examiner
did interpret the count as reciting louvers having at least three
different angles, and that the at least two angled louvered
arrangements would be anticipated by or obvious in view of the
count.
Bouzida also argues that the examiner stated that Beamer
claims 2 and 3, reciting at least three angled louver
arrangements are “virtually identical to the count” except for
minor recitations. The examiner’s statement could be interpreted
to mean that the examiner thought that the count recited an at
least three angled louver arrangement. In any event, Bouzida’s
arguments regarding the possible “state of mind” as to what the
examiner believed, was not raised in connection with its
preliminary motion 1.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007