Appeal No. 2004-1602
Application No. 09/954,766
of the second section, noting that claim 10 does not specify which
section is first or second (Answer, page 4, citing Figure 9 of
Rodriguez). We note that terms of degree such as “approximately”
allow for some latitude on either side of the recited value. See
Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1471 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577, 16 USPQ2d
1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established that each and every
limitation of the claims is described by Rodriguez within the
meaning of section 102(b). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
of claims 1-3, 6 and 10 under section 102(b) over Rodriguez.
B. The Rejections under § 103(a)
With regard to the rejection of claims 7-9 and 11-12 over
Rodriguez (Answer, page 5), appellants present the same arguments
with respect to Rodriguez as well as arguing the teachings of Orii
(Brief, page 12). However, Orii has not been applied against
claims 7-9 and 11-12. Therefore appellants’ argument regarding the
“combination of prior art references” is not well taken (Brief,
page 13).
Appellants argue that the examiner has failed to appreciate
the significance of the particular angle between sections of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007