Appeal No. 2001-2509
Application No. 08/603,331
static material of Tupper in the rubber device of Ballantyne to
render the device anti-static as required by claim 37.
We further concur with the examiner that Ballantyne
describes the orientation of the thickened section above the
straight edge recited in claim 25, at least to the unspecified
extent disclosed in the present specification. Also, as pointed
out by the examiner, the Exhibit A referred to by appellant
provides a dictionary meaning for the term “monolithic” but does
not demonstrate that “the thickened section is not parallel to
the flexible straight edge”, as argued at page 9 of the principal
brief. Apparently, appellant did not submit the Exhibit
mentioned in the brief.
Regarding separately argued claim 45, due to the relative
nature of the claim language “so that the device may be held
easily”, we agree with the examiner that the device of Ballantyne
meets the claim limitation. While appellant is correct in
stating that the function of a claim feature must be considered
in determining its patentability, there is no definition in the
present specification of the limitation “easily” such that the
claimed device is distinguishable over the device of Ballantyne.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007