Appeal No. 2003-1200
Application No. 09/319,142
Even if claim 16 were to require a pyramid-shape which
includes a pointed apex, the claim would not necessarily be
patentably distinguishable over the applied prior art. This is
because Gregory expressly teaches that his recesses 35 may be
of any suitable shape (e.g., see the sentence bridging columns 3
and 4). This teaching in combination with the recess-shape shown
in Figs. 10-12 of Gregory evinces that it would have been obvious
for one with ordinary skill in the art to provide recesses having
a pyramid-shape which includes a pointed apex.
In light of the foregoing and notwithstanding the
appellants’ contrary view, it is our determination that Gregory
teaches or at least would have suggested a plate-shaped support
having a surface with a plurality of pyramid-shaped depressions
which include a pyramid angle as required by the claim under
review. Further, we fully share the examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art
to provide the gemstone of Nassau with the previously described
support having a plurality of pyramid-shaped depressions of the
type taught by Gregory in order to obtain the benefits taught by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007