Appeal No. 2005-0186
Application No. 10/126,217
reflected in independent claim 1 but is found only in dependent
claims 10 through 12. We will not impute any features recited
with respect to these claims into the subject matter of
independent claim 1 on appeal.
It is noted with respect to the dialogue between the
examiner’s responsive arguments portion of the answer and the
substance of the reply brief beginning at the middle of page
3 that the term “relative” in its defined sense is always with
respect to something. It is significant to note that independent
claims 1 and 14 do not recite any feature of the relativity being
with respect to anything, thus presenting for our consideration
very broad features on appeal subject to much interpretation.
Indeed, it may be said that appellants’ arguments here are not
consistent with the broad recitation in claims 1 and 14. It is
believed that our earlier remarks in this opinion directly
address the examiner’s failure to establish how Wang teaches or
suggests using relative sets of each coil as set forth at the top
of page 4 of the reply brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007