Appeal No. 2005-1279
Application No. 09/924,285 5
both the appellants’ specification (see, for example, page 4 and
Figure 3 in the drawings) and the definition of “cross-section”
advanced by the appellants (which has not been challenged by the
examiner). The examiner has not cogently explained, and it is
not apparent, why the artisan would have viewed cylindrical
pistons having circular transverse cross-sections, such as those
disclosed by Nennecker and Gumery, to be pistons which are
substantially rectilinear in cross-section merely because they
happen to embody rectilinear cross-sections parallel to their
longitudinal axes. The examiner also has failed to explain, and
it is not evident, why either reference would have suggested a
piston which is substantially rectilinear in cross-section.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, and dependent
claims 3 through 9 and 14 through 20, as being anticipated by
Nennecker, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 2 and 13 as being unpatentable over Nennecker, the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and
12, and dependent claims 3 through 10 and 14 through 21, as being
anticipated by Gumery, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2, 13, 27 and 29, as being
unpatentable over Gumery.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007