Appeal 2007-1002
Application 10/257,830
(c) claims 8 and 23 over EP ‘235 in view of Yao and Tsien.
We have carefully considered each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his
cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant.
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in
sustaining the rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
Appellant’s arguments against the § 102 rejection over Farrar are, for
the most part, not germane to the claimed subject matter on appeal. For
instance, Appellant contends that “[i]n contrast to Farrar, the deflection
plates recited in claim 1 do not allow for flow through the plate” (Br. 16, last
para.). However, claim 1 contains no recitation that precludes flow through
the deflection surface. Also, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that the perforations in the plate of Farrar disqualify it from being a
deflection surface. Manifestly, as explained by the Examiner, the non-
perforated portions of Farrar’s plate deflect the media through the
perforations. The appealed claims fail to define any particular structure for
the recited “deflection surface.”
As for separately argued claim 8, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that “[t]he Victaulic clamp in Farrar does not brace ‘top’ and ‘end’
pieces as described by the present application” (Br. 21, penultimate para.) .
As pointed out by the Examiner, it is the claims, not the specification, that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013