Appeal 2007-0380
Reexamination Control 90/007,199
Patent 6,394,644 B1
one plane to another. Instead the limitation requires that the surface extends
“substantially” from one plane to another. We find that at least Figures 1
and 4 provide descriptive support for the limitation by showing the outer
surface 20 as extending very close to the entire distance between the
transverse planes.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, for failing to meet the written description requirement.
V. Order
Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 15-
23, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Duke is
AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 2, 5, 23 and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Signer is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claim
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, for failing to meet the written description
requirement is REVERSED; and
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013