Appeal No. 2005-2038
Application No. 09/957,416
followed.
We are unpersuaded as well that the use of the characterization of a
”horizontal polygon” to describe the hazard areas claimed distinguishes
over the cylindrical volume 10 discussion and depiction in Figures 2 and 3
of Deker. The examiner has already addressed this at page 6 of the
answer with respect to the examiner’s responsive arguments as to the
grouping of dependent claims 2 and 21, and 3 and 22 with respect to the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants have not
defined in the specification as filed the term “polygon” to be anything other
than the normal definition that the examiner has chosen as an example
from an ordinary dictionary at page 6 of the answer. To this we might add
that a polygon may be considered a closed, plane figure bounded by
straight lines or arcs, especially greater than 4. The examiner’s view that
ultimately a polygon may have an infinite number of sides or arcs or
angles that may be depicted as a circle is well taken.
When there is a height component added, it becomes a cylindrical volume
as described in Deker.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007