Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
Claim 16
Appellants argue that claim 16 recites "the wide part of the
U-shaped portion is spaced from the trailing edge," which
distinguishes over Brezoczky for this reason as well as the
reasons mentioned for claims 14 and 15 (Br12).
Appellants do not argue why the examiner erred in the
rejection which includes Fukuoka and, in fact, appellants do not
mention Fukuoka at all. The rejection must be sustained for this
reason. In addition, the wide part of the U-shaped portion in
Fig. 7 of Fukuoka is spaced from the trailing edge as claimed and
the modification of the pad in Brezoczky to have a U-shape in
view of Fukuoka would also have this characteristic. The
rejection of claim 16 is sustained.
Claims 20 and 21
Claim 20 is taken as representative.
Appellants argue that claim 20 recites "the pad includes a
parabolic-shaped portion ... and a wide part of the
parabolic-shaped portion is spaced from the leading edge," which
distinguishes over Brezoczky for this reason as well as the
reasons mentioned for claims 4 and 13 (Br13).
Appellants do not argue why the examiner erred in the
rejection which includes Fukuoka and, in fact, appellants do not
mention Fukuoka at all. The rejection must be sustained for this
reason. In addition, we agree with the examiner that Fukuoka
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007