Appeal 2007-1463 Page 22
Application 10/083,492
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
holding the combination of Keller and Vitali would have rendered the subject
matter of claim 2 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. We incorporate herein the facts under the Findings of Fact section for the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16-18, 24, 25, 29, 30, 35-38, 40, and 41
above and add the following facts.
2. Appellants argue that
Claim 2 specifies that the plate "is located on the lower portion of the
disk." The lower surface of the cavity 11 of KELLER's disk 1 does not
appear to be located even in the lower half of the disk. Appellants submit
that it would not be properly characterized as being location "on the lower
portion of the disk."
That is, the lower surface of cavity 11 of KELLER is not a lower
portion of a disk, as specified in Appellants' claim 2.
In this regard a "surface" is not a portion; a surface is only a two-
dimensional aspect of something. Second, surface 11 is not in a lower
portion of "fastening plate 1" of KELLER. Thus, in what sense, can the
surface 11 of KELLER be regarded as a "lower portion" of the disk?
Br. 23.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013