Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
attached to the reply brief begins on page 5 of the reply brief. Therefore, we
will refer infra to specific pages of the corrected appeal brief using the page
numbering of the reply brief. We also note that a supplemental reply brief
was received on Dec. 6, 2005 that has been considered.
I. We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-17 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Baur. Since appellant’s arguments
with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group
which stand or fall together, we will consider independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
Appellant argues that the examiner's position can only be described as
alleging obviousness because the narrow ranges (e.g., 0.5 to 4.0
degrees/1.5 to 2.0 degrees) for twist angle β prescribed in the instant
invention are included in the wider range of Baur (e.g., -15 to + 15 degrees)
[corrected brief, page 6, emphasis added]. In particular, appellant points to
MPEP §2131.03(II):
If the claims are directed to a narrow range, the reference
teaches a broad range, and there is evidence of unexpected
results within the claimed narrow range, depending on the other
facts of the case, it may be reasonable to conclude that the
narrow range is not disclosed with “sufficient specificity” to
constitute an anticipation of the claims. The unexpected results
may also render the claims unobvious.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007