Appeal No. 2001-0786 Application No. 09/089,575 alone, and the patentability of claim 8 stands or falls with the patentability of claim 2. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). However, for reasons set forth hereinafter, the patentability of claims 3 and 4 stands with the patentability of claim 1. Discussion 1. Rejection of claim 1 The claim language at issue in this rejection is as follows: [A] compound feed section positioned within or between the baseplate and the die body, the compound feed section incorporating feed conduits . . . being angled away from the flow axes of the baseplate feedholes over at least a portion of their length. Appellant argues that the feed conduits in the compound feed section of Duerr are bored at the same angle as the die baseplate feedholes. Therefore, the feed conduits in Duerr do not have flow axes which angle away from the flow axes of the baseplate feedholes. See Brief, pp. 5-6. Relying on Figure 11 in Duerr, the examiner maintains that (Answer, p. 3): [T]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for a portion [of the] conduit wall or a portion of the conduit structure to be angled away from the flow axes of the baseplate feedholes. Since only a portion of the conduit needs to be angled away from the flow axes of the baseplate feedholes, the central flow axes of the feed conduit in the compound feed section does not need to be different than that of the 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007