Appeal 2006-2946
Application 10/197,455
adjacent the passage portion. It is Appellant's contention that since the ribs
218 of Palobeis "are spaced and interrupted from a passage portion or
channel 210 . . . the ribs 218 are neither adjacent to nor continuous with the
passage portion 210, as recited in independent claim 1" (Br. 4, second
paragraph).
We do not subscribe to Appellant's position. Unlike Appellant, we
concur with the Examiner that side walls 212 of Palobeis are part of the
passage portion 170. Also, although ribs 218 are spaced from the passage
portion, we agree with the Examiner that the ribs are "adjacent" to the
passage, as the term is ordinarily defined as "near" or "close." Also, as for
ribs 218 being continuous with the passage portion, we agree with the
Examiner that Figure 8 of the reference depicts ribs 218 as being integral
with, or at least connected to, elements 212 and 210 and, thereby, being
continuous with the passage portion.
In response to Appellant's argument that ribs 218 of Palobeis are
spaced from the passage portion and, therefore, cannot be adjacent thereto,
we note that the claimed ribs 61a are defined as adjacent to side walls 60a
even though they are spaced therefrom by cover 62.
Appellant also maintains that "[i]ndependent claim 1 recites both side
walls and a passage portion, and therefore the side walls 212 of Palobeis
cannot be both the side walls and the passage portion of the claimed
invention" (principal Brief 4, third paragraph). However, claim 1 on appeal
does not preclude the side walls as being part of the passage portion and,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007