Appeal 2007-1351
Application 10/628,942
guide, and on the side at which the contact is made between the movable
element and the light guide.
Appellant suggests (Reply Br. 5) that the term must be interpreted in
view of the Specification, which we infer to mean that the Specification sets
forth a definition for “anti-adhesion” that distinguishes over the reference.
Appellant does not, however, point out where the definition may lie.
Appellant also suggests (id.) that one skilled in the art would not consider
the structure described by Stern as an anti-adhesion layer, but does not
provide or refer to any evidence in support of the allegation.
With respect to the Examiner’s alternative finding that stand-off
elements 46 or 54 meet the requirements of the claimed anti-adhesion layer,
Appellant in the Reply Brief does not explain, or even allege, that stand-off
elements 46 cannot be considered an anti-adhesion layer. The rejection
could be sustained on that basis alone. With respect to stand-off elements
54, Appellant submits that “discrete” elements 54 do not constitute a “layer”
as conventionally interpreted, and as the term is used in the Specification.
(Br. 5.) Appellant does not, however, submit what the “conventional”
meaning of layer may be, nor point to any support in the Specification for
the position. Stern does not refer to stand-off elements 54 as a “layer,”
while describing other structures as “layers,” consistent with Appellant’s
position. The Examiner notes, however, that Stern discloses (col. 10, ll. 46-
53) that stand-offs may be formed from a substrate, the stand-offs thus being
consistent with a “layer” of substrate as conventionally interpreted. (Answer
8.)
We find that the evidence provides ample support for the Examiner’s
findings, and are not persuaded of error in the rejection of independent claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013