Appeal 2007-1488
Application 10/809,072
1 structure comprising at least one of: a helix, a three-dimensional
2 bend, a staircase, and a zigzag,” as recited in appealed claim 1.
3 7. The Examiner also found that both Monte ‘468 and Monte ‘469
4 teach that helical crystal (grain) selectors of the so-called
5 “pigtail” type have been used in the prior art but that they are
6 “relatively expensive,” which “may be contributed to by a
7 substantial scrap rate.” (Monte ‘468, 1:21-25; Monte ‘469,
8 1:17-22.)
9 8. The crystal (grain) selectors of Monte ‘468 and Monte ‘469 are
10 said to be an improvement over prior art grain selectors.
11 (Monte ‘468, 3:48-60; Monte ‘469, 2:25-36.)
12 9. The Examiner also relied on Burd to show that grain selectors
13 with a helical configuration were commonly used in the prior
14 art. (Answer 3; Burd, 2:10-35.)
15 10. Applicants do not rely on any evidence (e.g., declaration
16 evidence) to show that their invention does not suffer from the
17 known disadvantages of helical grain selectors.
18
19 Rejection II: Burd in View of Either Monte ‘468 or Monte ‘469
20 11. Burd’s Figure 2 is reproduced as follows:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013