Appeal No. 2006-1647
Application No. 10/157,537
individual screens may be woven. The examiner's rationale that
interwoven screens may form a releasable combination depending
on the degree of interweaving, e.g., using only a few strands of
wire, or the patience of the "unweaver," is not, in our opinion,
a reasonable one. Also, the examiner's position is not
reasonable because separate first and second screens that are
interwoven become a single screen, not an additional screen
secured to a screen assembly. In our view, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably understood the original
specification as describing a second screen releasably affixed
to a first screen by conventional means other than interweaving.
As noted above, appellants have not challenged the
examiner's rejection of claim 8 under § 112, second paragraph.
Appellants submit that they plan "to either correct the claim if
possible during future prosecution or delete the claim if
correction is not possible" (page 5 of Reply Brief, first
paragraph). Indeed, appellants have not appealed the examiner's
rejection of claim 8 under § 112, second paragraph.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained
to reverse the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007