Appeal No. 2001-2204
Application No. 09/155,413
through 54 and column 4, lines 23 through 26). While as earlier
pointed out, we fully appreciate the examiner's concern as to
perceived deficiencies in appellant's disclosure, the latter
documents fairly reveal a level of skill to this panel of the
Board that would have permitted practitioners in the art to use
the present disclosure to make and use the claimed method and
apparatus without undue experimentation. Thus, it appears to us
that those skilled in this art would have been well capable of
analyzing obtained data to determine a configuration of each
tooth on a blank, contrary to the examiner's point of view
(answer, page 3). For the preceding reasons, we cannot support
the rejection on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007