Appeal No. 1998-2436
Application 08/550,667
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections4
The examiner’s position is that he interprets
appellants’ claim 1 as setting forth a cross section that
is elliptical in shape. (Answer, page 6).
At the bottom of page 25 through page 26 of their
brief, appellants state that their claimed invention is
directed towards a filament having a thickness that
tapers symmetrically and smoothly about the longitudinal
axis from the medially located lateral axis towards each
tip.
Hence, there exists a contested limitation with
regard to claim 1. We note that implicit in our
analysis, is that the claim must first have been
correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of a
contested limitation. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1460, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here,
we must construe the term “substantially diamond-shaped
cross section” to ascertain its scope and meaning.
We determine that Figure 2 (original or amended),
describes the shape of “substantially diamond-shaped
cross section.” In view of this definition provided by
Figure 2, we must compare the illustrated cross section
of Figure 2 with the teachings of Hisaaki. Our comments
on this comparison are set forth below.
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner states that
Hisaaki teaches a rectangular cross section with rounded
4 We note we need not discuss the secondary reference of Geerts in
connection with the rejection of claims 6-10 because Geerts does not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007