Appeal No. 2006-0112 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/194,739
Jones does not describe a tip segment that is defined by the function y= s tan x
as set forth in claim 1 on appeal. While the examiner is correct that Jones describes
arcs on the tip segment that have substantially equal radii, this disclosure is not a
disclosure alone does not establish that the Jones tip segment that is defined by the
function y=s tan x. The Jones tip segment could be defined by other function and still
have substantially equal radii for the arcs. In addition, the word “substantially” is not
used in claim 1 to modify the tangent function but is rather used to modify the extension
of the value of x toward pi/2 and -pi/2.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim
1 and claims 2, 6, 8 and 12 dependent thereon. We will likewise not sustain this
rejection as it is directed to claim 11 and claim 13 dependent thereon because claim 11
also requires that the tip segment be defined by the function y=s tan x.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Antoine.
The examiner relies on Antoine for teaching a tip having a slope that appears to
slope upwardly at a constant function. Claims 3, 4 and 7 are dependent on claim 1 and
therefore include the subject matter of a tip segment defined by the function
y= s tan x. We have examined the disclosure of Antoine and determined that Antoine
does not cure the deficiencies noted above for Jones. Therefore, we will not sustain
this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007