Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895 Page 7
criticality for the claimed aspect ratio (peak-to-valley height)
and projection heights. See, e.g., page 6, lines 13-20 of
appellants’ specification.
As for the macroscopic irregularities in the contact band
surface that are in addition to the projections, as specified in
representative claim 1, we note that the surface of the contact
band (60, fig. 7) of Gammel includes other bends (irregularities)
besides bumps (63). On this record, we determine that the
claimed macroscopic surface irregularities do not serve to
specify a patentably distinguishing structure over that suggested
by Gammel.3 On this record, we find that the teachings of Gammel
furnish sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, we need not further discuss the teachings of
the additional references applied by the examiner.
Appellants maintain that Gammel does not disclose or suggest
projecting member heights and a cleaning function for “surface
3 We note that appellants’ original claim 1 and the
specification (page 6, lines 5-15), as filed, referred to
microscopic surface irregularities in addition to projections
(macroscopic irregularities), not both macroscopic irregularities
and projections, as now claimed. In the event of further
prosecution of the here claimed subject matter before the
examiner in this (or a continuing) application, the examiner
should determine whether representative claim 1 satisfies the
description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007