Appeal No. 2001-1077
Application No. 09/051,506
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to claim 9, the sole independent claim on appeal,
the Examiner initially attempts to read the various limitations on
the disclosure of Schmiedel. In particular, the Examiner (Answer,
pages 2 and 3) points to the structure illustrated in Figures 23,
28, and 29 of Schmiedel along with the accompanying description
beginning at column 7, line 58.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of
Schmiedel to disclose every limitation in independent claim 9 as is
required to support a rejection based on anticipation. At page 7
of the Brief, Appellants’ arguments focus on the contention that
the magnet supporting surface of Schmiedel, identified by the
Examiner as the region below rubber blanket 614, does not
correspond to a supporting strip, let alone one having first and
second supporting areas with differing elastic resiliency as
claimed.
After reviewing the Schmiedel reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as expressed in the Brief. As pointed out by Appellants
(Brief, pages 6 and 7) the magnetic chamber region below element
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007