Appeal No. 2000-1991
Application No. 08/587,417
1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, we look
first to the language of independent claims 1 and 23 on appeal to
derive an understanding of the scope and content of the claim.
In the present invention, there is a disagreement between
appellants and the examiner regarding the phrase “without
substantial formation of a bird’s head” as recited in both
independent claims 1 and 23. The examiner seems to interpret
this recitation (answer at page 4) as having no bird’s head and
asserts that appellants have not shown how applicants have
achieved the result of no bird’s head using a process similar to
Aoyama’s. We look to the disclosure, especially pages 8, 9 and
10, and we find that the bird’s beak(head) is reduced
substantially by the process of appellants. For instance, the
bird’s beak reduction is disclosed to be approximately 10-90%,
(id. at page 9), and a reduction in the bird’s beak encroachment
of approximately 50% is achieved by appellants (id. at page 10).
In light of the appellants’ disclosure as noted above, we find
that the “without substantial formation of a bird’s head” phrase
does not mean that there is no bird’s head, rather it means that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007