Appeal No. 2006-1058
Application No. 10/034,073
shaped as a flat form. We also concur with the examiner that
appellants' specification does not define a particular structure
for a half sinusoidal wave that distinguishes over the structures
illustrated by Imamura. In particular, the specification
discloses that "[t]he grating of the present invention may have a
groove cross section shaped like a half sawtooth, or a half
sawtooth with a flat top as shown in Fig. 6" (page 15, second
paragraph). Inasmuch as the rejected claims embrace the shape of
appellants' Figure 6, we find no meaningful distinction between
gratings within the scope of the rejected claims and the gratings
represented by Figures 1a and 1c of Imamura. Appellants'
reference to an encyclopedic definition of Sawtooth Wave does not
establish how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret
the claimed half sawtooth wave in light of the present
specification.
We are also not persuaded by appellants' argument that "a
trapezoid does not include the generally vertical trailing face
of a 'half sawtooth wave'" (page 11 of principal brief, first
paragraph). This argument lacks relevancy since appellants'
Figure 6 does not show a generally vertical trailing face. As
for appellants' contention that "[t]he 'half sawtooth wave' does
not have symmetrical leading and trailing faces" (id.), such a
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007