Appeal 2006-2998
Application 09/956,524
said core." Id. at 1007, 145 USPQ at 136. Having reviewed the application
drawings relied upon for support, the court stated: it seems to us that [the
drawings] conform to the one-fourth circumference limitation almost
exactly. But the claim requires only an approximation. Since we believe an
amendment to the specification to state that one-fourth of the circumference
is the aperture width would not violate the rule against "new matter," we feel
that supporting disclosure exists. The rejection is therefore in error.
Id.
In view of the above, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (written
description) rejection of claims 1 through 12.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
The Examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on pages 3
through 4 of the Answer and we incorporate the position therein as our own.
Appellants’ position is set forth on pages 13 through 16 of the Brief
and page 8 of the Reply Brief. Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s
position that Figures 1 and 2 of Flaugher teaches a curvature along the
longitudinal and transverse axis.
Appellants also point out that the male mold according to their
invention includes a plurality of heating elements disposed through the male
mold. Appellants state that each of the heating elements is disposed to
substantially follow the contoured shape of the pressing surface to maintain
a substantially constant distance from the pressing surface of the male mold.
Br. 13-14.
Appellants argue on page 14 of the Brief that Flaugher does not show
a curvature of the pressing surface in transverse directions as claimed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007