Appeal No. 2001-1787
Application 09/374,122
Given appellant’s clear definition of what a “labyrinth” is
in the context of the present application, it is immediately
apparent that the mazes of Handweller are not the same thing and,
contrary to the examiner’s assertion (answer, page 3), one
skilled in the art would not have viewed Handweller’s mazes as
being equivalent to appellant’s labyrinths. By merely citing to
a dictionary definition to his liking, the examiner may not
disregard or dismiss the definition provided by appellant in the
specification. The definition provided by appellant in the
originally filed specification is that which must be applied,
unless such definition is entirely repugnant to the usual meaning
of the term, which it is not in the present application.
As has been further urged by appellant, the mazes of
Handweller are contained within a flat container of opaque
material and, for that reason, are referred to as being
“invisible.” Thus, like appellant, we are at a loss to
understand exactly how the examiner can conclude (final
rejection, page 4) that “a finger is capable of being inserted
within the plurality of walls (16) of Hanweiler [sic, Handweller]
enabling the finger to complete the fingerwalk labyrinths.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007