Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
Analysis
Issue (1): Does Brahmbhatt disclose a "second wall surface extending
upward from an upper edge of said first wall surface, wherein said
second wall surface is inclined at an angle larger than the angle of
said first wall surface, with respect to the horizontal," as recited in
claim 1?
Arguments
Patent Owners argue that the Examiner improperly attempts to apply a
single surface 68 of Brahmbhatt against the claimed first wall surface and
second wall surface (Patent Owners' Br. 8). It is argued that Brahmbhatt
does not disclose or suggest an "edge" between a first wall surface and a
second wall surface, where the second wall surface extends upward from an
"upper edge" of the first wall surface (id. at 9-10).
Requester states that Patent Owners' "first contention is that the
Examiner's interpretation of the term 'surface' is unreasonable, apparently in
that it enables regions of a surface not separated by an abrupt discontinuity
to be themselves referred to as 'surfaces'" (Requester's Brief 5). Requester
submits that the Examiner's interpretation that "a surface may be considered
to include plural surfaces even though there is not an abrupt change thereof"
(Action Closing Prosecution 3) is reasonable and consistent with the '595
patent because the '595 patent uses the term "surface" to refer to different
structures. For example: the entirety of each side of the tray having multiple
distinct surface areas is a "surface" ('595 patent, col. 3, ll. 40-42); discrete
sub-portions of each side are also referred to as a "surface," e.g., a first wall
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013