Appeal No. 2002-0620
Application No. 08/921,943
opposite sidewalls and asserts that they represent sidewalls that
are generally parallel (id.).
Appellants argue that sidewalls 22 of Dingenotto are not
generally parallel to each other and, in fact, diverge from each
other (brief, page 9, reply brief, page 3). Appellants rely on
the dictionary definition of the modifier “generally” as meaning
“for the most part”3 and further argue that the claimed
structure, as depicted in Figure 3, has sidewalls that are for
the most part parallel to each other (id.).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that it is the Examiner’s opinion that the sidewalls of the
claimed invention, as depicted in Figure 3, are not parallel
(answer, page 4). The Examiner further asserts that the
sidewalls of Dingenotto appear to extend in the same direction as
the sidewalls in Appellants’ Figure 3 (id.). The Examiner
concludes that if the sidewalls in Appellants’ Figure 3 are
parallel, then the sidewalls of Dingenotto “could also be deemed
as ‘generally parallel’” (id.).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
3 Appellants rely on The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third,
Edition, p. 567, a copy of which is attached to the brief as Appendix B.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007