Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
Issue (2): Does Brahmbhatt disclose a "second wall surface extending
from said first wall surface in a direction away from said first surface
of said main body, 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 16?
Arguments
Patent Owners argue that Brahmbhatt does not disclose the "second
wall surface extending from the first wall surface in a direction away from
said first surface of said main body" as recited in claim 16 because "[t]he
single surface is not disclosed as being broken into a first wall surface and a
second wall surface, nor does the single surface 68 disclose a second wall
surface that extends from the first wall surface at an angle larger than the
angle of the first wall surface [with respect to the horizontal" (Patent
Owners' Br. 13-14). It is argued that Brahmbhatt describes element 68 as a
"first face" and element 69 as a "second face" which are separated by a
ridge 69.1, which is evidence that one skilled in the art acknowledges the
need for some demarcation between the two surfaces 68 and 69, but no such
demarcation is found on the single surface 68 of Brahmbhatt (id. at 14).
Requester relies on the arguments for claim 1.
Analysis
Any prior art rejection of claim 16 is problematic because it is
indefinite what is meant by "said second wall surface extending from said
first wall surface in a direction away from said first surface of said main
- 24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013