Appeal 2007-0240
Application 10/602,462
resist layer 82 in figure 3 of Rose. The artisan would well appreciate that a
so-called coil structure claimed is “defined by” the upper conductors’
20b/22b of figure 3 in at least one channel as claimed. Because of the
manner in which claim 25 is recited, the Examiner’s characterization of first
and second segments is subject to broad interpretations of correlating
structure in figure 3 of Rose as the Examiner has done.
In a corresponding manner, the wherein clause at the end of claim 25
on appeal does not recite a reference point of any structural element of the
claim as a basis for “defining” a first angle and a second angle with respect
to the first and second segments, let alone a relationship of the second angle
being different from the first angle. Even in the more specific recitation in
dependent claim 31 (including claim 30 as well) there is no recitation of the
manner in which an actual angle recited in these claims is measured.
Appellants’ Reply Brief does not appear to recognize the Examiner’s
characterization at the bottom of page 8 of the Answer that “Applicant does
not specify the way of defining the angle” as it relates to dependent claim 31
on appeal. Appellants’ positions are unpersuasive of patentability in the
Brief and Reply Brief to the extent they urge us to read into the limitations
of claims 25 and 31 features of the disclosed invention such as their
relationships shown in figure 4E of the disclosed invention. In fact, the
disclosed angular relationships of the first and second segments in
accordance with the discussion at Specification page 11, is that the degrees
are broadly measured “with respect to a horizontal,” a feature not set forth in
the argued claims on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013