Appeal 2007-1951
Application 10/392,140
1 detract from the device of Wenning being used in a different orientation, we
2 maintain our position that claim 10 is anticipated by Wenning.
3 Turning to claim 12, we note at the outset that as stated in our
4 Decision (p. 13) that "claim 12 does not recite butt welding." The claim
5 recites that the fame and wall are welded, but is silent as to how they are
6 welded, and as such is met by offset welding. Nor are we persuaded by
7 Appellants' assertion (Rehearing 2) that the edges cannot be offset because
8 they are facing. We find Appellants to be providing a narrower definition of
9 facing than is required by the claim. For example, people in an auditorium
10 may face the stage. However, this does not mean that an axis running
11 through the person facing the stage also passes through a person on the
12 stage. Rather, the person may be facing the stage as a whole. In any event,
13 even if we are wrong in our interpretation of the language in the claim, as
14 Appellants have asserted, claim 12 is still met by the prior art for the reasons
15 which follow.
16 The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
17 unpatentable over Wenning in view of Just (Answer 3). As we noted in our
18 Decision (p. 15) , "appellants do not argue the teachings of Just. From the
19 disclosure of Just of using a butt weld to secure the facing edges of a sink
20 that is fabricated out of metal using seamless weld (col. 1, lines 7 and 8 and
21 36 and 37), we agree with the examiner that an artisan would have been
22 motivated to weld facing elements in the structure of Wenning."
23 Accordingly, from the failure of Appellants to argue the teachings of Just,
24 and our findings with respect to the Just reference, we are not convinced of
25 any error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013