Appeal No. 2003-0626
Application No. 09/410,896
concentric grooves 88 which are intersected by each and everyone
of linear radial grooves 90.” Examiner’s answer, page 6. The
examiner maintains that Moslehi nonetheless renders obvious
appellants’ claimed invention since appellants have failed to
establish any unexpected results corresponding to the particular
dimensions of the grooves or to the number of grooves. Id.
Appellants argue that Moslehi does not render obvious the
claimed invention because the term “first plurality” used in
claims 1 and 8 necessarily requires at least three circular
grooves each and everyone of which is in fluid communication with
a second plurality of linear grooves. See appeal brief, pages
8-9. In this regard, appellants note that term “first plurality”
refers to at least three grooves when interpreted in accordance
with the specification and claims. See appeal brief, page 8,
and examiner’s answer, page 8. Since only two circular grooves
on Moslehi’s pedestal are in fluid communication with the linear
grooves, Moslehi cannot render obvious the claimed invention.
Appeal brief, page 8.
The examiner argues that claim language must be interpreted
as broadly as possibly and the term “plurality” is equivalent to
“more than one” and therefore, the limitation of the plurality of
grooves including at least three grooves which appears in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007