Appeal 2006-2308
Application 10/343,154
and narrowing between the boundary walls should be employed within the
Hammer method. (Br. 6).
The Examiner, relying on Ex parte Pfeiffer 135 USPQ 31 (BPAI
1961), maintains that “to be entitled to weight in method claims, recited
structural limitations must affect the method in a manipulative sense and not
amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure.” According to
the Examiner, Appellant’s hyperboloid-shaped forming screen is a structural
article, the configuration of which is a matter of choice that would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (Answer 9) (citing In re
Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). The Examiner submits
that the prior art clearly shows the method steps, and Appellant has not
provided evidence that shows that the particular shape of the article
materially affects the method. (Answer 12).
As pointed out by Appellant, in determining obviousness, all
limitations of a claim must be considered. There are no per se rules when
1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Appellant has explained that the
shape of the mold plainly affects the claimed method in a manipulative
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007