Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion in all respects except that I would
reverse the rejection for anticipation by Brahmbhatt for somewhat different
reasons.
I would begin by determining whether Brahmbhatt’s surface 68, on
which the Examiner and Requester would have us read the claimed first and
second wall surfaces, includes portions satisfying the requirements of
Claims 1 and 16 that (a) the first wall surface be inclined at first angle with
respect to the horizontal and (b) the second wall surface extend from the first
wall surface and be inclined at an angle larger than the angle of the first wall
surface with respect to the horizontal. I agree with the majority that the
foregoing claim limitations (1) require that the first and second surfaces be
in contact, (2) do not imply that either wall surface is flat or even
approximately flat, and (3) require a identifiable physical transition between
the two wall surfaces which need not be abrupt. I would hold that the
physical transition requirement is not satisfied by dividing surface 68 into
two surfaces by the slanted line shown in Requester’s annotated Figure 7
(Requester’s Br. 15), because that line does not correspond to an identifiable
physical transition between two parts of surface 68.
On the other hand, all of the above conditions are satisfied when the
first wall surface is read onto the slightly rounded ridge 69.1 (col. 5, ll. 39-
40) and the second wall surface is read onto the remainder of the surface 68,
a reading addressed by the majority. Under these circumstances, an
- 55 -
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013