Appeal 2006-3309
Application 10/311,263
The Examiner has relied on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kotoyori US 6,228,203 B1 May 08, 2001
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a and e) as
anticipated by Kotoyori (Answer 3).1 We REVERSE this ground of
rejection essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and for
those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Figure 12 as disclosed by Kotoyori describes
every limitation found in claim 11 on appeal (Answer 3-4). As shown by the
annotated Figure 12 of Kotoyori (Answer 6), the Examiner finds that it is
clear from this attached drawing that the radius of adhesive on the upper disk
is smaller than the radius of adhesive on the lower disk (Answer 5-6).
Appellants argue that, since Figure 12 of Kotoyori is not drawn to
scale, it is impossible to state that this reference discloses that the radius of
adhesive on the upper disk is smaller than the radius of adhesive on the
lower disk (Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue that claim 11 also
requires the amount of adhesive on the upper disk to be smaller than the
amount of adhesive on the lower disk, and nothing in Figure 12 or elsewhere
in Kotoyori suggests this requirement of claim 11 on appeal (Reply Br. 2).
We find Appellants’ arguments well taken. It is clear that the
Examiner finds the limitation of the relative radii of adhesives rings required
1The Examiner inadvertently lists claim 1 as the sole claim rejected (Answer 3).
However, we hold that it is clear from the Final Rejection dated Aug. 26, 2005, and the
Brief that claim 11 is the only pending claim and is the subject of the only rejection in
this appeal. Furthermore, the Examiner discusses claim 11 just two lines below the
statement of rejection for “claim 1” (Answer 3). Therefore we deem the Examiner’s
error to be harmless.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013