Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
With respect to representative independent claim 1, the
examiner indicates how he finds anticipation [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that Thompson-Russell does not disclose that
each of the slots has a vertically elongated shape and wherein
the vertical pitch of the slots is set to a value ranging from
0.2mm to 0.5mm and is defined relative to the centers of the
slots as claimed. Appellant notes that the values set forth for
the dimensions of the slots in Thompson-Russell cannot possibly
satisfy the dimensions recited in claim 1 [brief, pages 3-6].
The examiner responds by citing a portion of Thompson-Russell
wherein it is stated that “[t]he pitch between the apertures and
the rows of apertures is, for example, 0.20mm and 0.53 mm,
respectively.” The examiner notes that the claimed range reads
on the range disclosed by Thompson-Russell [answer, pages 5-7].
Appellant responds that the portion of Thompson-Russell relied on
by the examiner relates to a discussion of the pits and not of
the vertical slots as claimed. Appellant also responds that the
examiner has improperly relied on Hirabayashi to support this
anticipation rejection based on Thompson-Russell [reply brief].
We will not sustain this rejection of the examiner. The
portion of the disclosure of Thompson-Russell which is relied on
by the examiner does not support the examiner’s finding of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007