Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
(9)
Nepela fails to Label Features
In the Supplement to Reply Brief at page 7-9, Appellants argue that
the claims are patentable over Nepela because Nepela does not label features
using the same labels as Appellants. We disagree.
Appellants do not present an argument that Nepela’s structures fail to
function as described by the Examiner. Rather, Appellants argue that
Nepela does not label the structures in the same way as Appellants and thus
there is no basis for the Examiner to equate Nepela’s structures to
Appellants’ labels.
As discussed above, every element of claims 21, 30-32, and 41, is
found in Nepela. Therefore, this argument fails to show Examiner error.
V. NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
(1)
New Ground of Rejection of Claims 42-51
Reissue claims 42-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
As to claim 42, lines 11-13 (Br. 59) read as follows:
“said U-shaped air bearing platform comprising not more than
two separate air bearing platforms each extending from
different and facing spaced-apart opposite ends of said not more
than two separate air bearing platforms . . .”
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013