Appeal No. 2005-2487
Application 08/900,254
resulting three-dimensional pleated structure is said to be stable and may form the basis
for a filter.
A previous appeal in this application was decided February 20, 2002 as 2001-
0344, by this same panel.
II. Waived Issues
The examiner has interpreted several claim elements during prosecution, which
interpretations the appellant has not contested in this appeal. Accordingly, we conclude
that the appellant has waived the following issues of claim interpretation:
Waived Issue #1: Definition of “spacer.” In the rejection of record, including the
previous Examiner’s Answer dated May 19, 2000 from the previous appeal (page 4, line
11), and in the present Examiner’s Answer dated October 4, 2004 (page 4, third line
from bottom), the examiner is, and has been throughout prosecution, reading the term
“spacer” as including “pleats.” Indeed, the appellant amended claim 1 to recite that the
filter material was “pleated” by the claimed method. The appellant has not, so far as our
review of the record reveals, challenged this interpretation of the term.
Waived Issue #2: Definition of “flat bonding.” In the rejection of record and in the
Examiner’s Answer (page 6, last 2 lines) the examiner is, and has been throughout
prosecution, reading the term “flat bonding” as including pressed areas or flat spots.
The appellant has not, so far as our review of the record reveals, challenged this
interpretation of the term.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007