Appeal No. 2005-0355 Page 3
Application No. 10/080,714
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 15 and 17) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that the final paragraph of claim 1 is confusing and
requires correction. Specifically, this paragraph fails to indicate the other structure,
between the recess wall and which the angle " is defined. In view of the statement on
page 3 of appellants’ specification that “the average angle " defined by the intersection
of the wall of the recess 13 and the adjacent land 14 is 2o” and the illustration of angle "
in Figure 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the angle defined in claim 1 to
be the angle " illustrated in Figure 3, that is, the angle between the tangent to the wall
at the intersection of the wall and the adjacent land and the adjacent land. Accordingly,
we have so interpreted claim 1 for purposes of this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007