Appeal 2007-0213
Application 11/060,994
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
Akerson describes an article of manufacture formed from binder coated
wood flakes having a lopsided funnel shaped hole extending from one
surface, wherein the hole has one side portion extending approximately
perpendicularly from said surface and an opposite portion side portion
extending from said one surface at an angle of 20 degrees or more with
respect to the perpendicular, as recited in claim 1. The sole argument
advanced by Appellant is that Figure 1 of Akerson shows that "the tubular
channels 15 do not extend through the body" and, therefore, Akerson "does
not include a lopsided funnel-shaped hole extending from one surface of an
article to another" (page 4 of Br., second para.). However, as accurately
pointed out by the Examiner, Akerson expressly discloses that "[t]he aim is
to provide a multiplicity of cavities each connected to at least one surface
opening by a channel from the cavity to the opening" (col. 3, ll. 15-17,
emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has reasonably
interpreted the reference disclosure as fairly describing cavities which
extend from one surface of the article to another surface of the article.
Significantly, Appellant has not refuted the Examiner's interpretation of the
reference disclosure, i.e., Appellant has not submitted a Reply Brief which
addresses the pertinent disclosure of Akerson. We also note that Appellant
has not rebutted the Examiner's reasonable conclusion that the tool depicted
in Figure 5 of Akerson would produce a hole in accordance with the general
configuration of the claimed hole.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007