Appeal No. 2000-1592
Application 08/661,220
at the bottom of page 5 of the principal brief on appeal the
"ribs (5) and grooves (6) cannot be interpreted as both claimed
features."
We reverse the rejection of dependent claim 8 and
corresponding limitations recited in independent claim 9 because,
as argued by appellant at pages 7 and 8 of the principal brief on
appeal, the feature of the battery itself having at least one of
the counterpart cavities in dependent claim 8 and a corresponding
feature recited in independent claim 9 cannot be met by this
reference since it simply does not disclose anything at all about
the physical location in Figures 1 and 2 or its written
description of the battery itself.
We sustain the rejection of dependent claim 16 notwith-
standing appellant's arguments at pages 9 and 10 of the principal
brief on appeal. The essential additional feature in dependent
claim 16 added over those in its parent independent 1 on appeal
is the means for holding different sizes of phones. The claim
goes on to recite that the holding means of claim 16 comprises
the same three support points recited in the parent claim 1.
Since we have already determined that the three support points of
independent claim 1, as interpreted earlier in this opinion, are
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007