Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
repeating W-shaped strand configurations having a repeating
dip, rise, dip, rise, loop, dip, rise, dip, rise, loop patterned
configuration.
(Id. at 5.)
The Specification concludes:
It is understood that even though numerous
characteristics and advantages of various embodiments . . .
have been set forth in the foregoing description, together
with details of the structure and function of various
embodiments . . . , this disclosure is illustrative only and
changes may be made in detail, especially in matters of
shape, size and arrangement of parts . . . to the full extent
indicated by the broad general meaning of the terms in which
the appended claims are expressed.”
(Id. at 27 (emphasis added).)
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Ley US 6,013,091 Jan. 11, 2000
Hojeibane US 6,017,363 Jan. 25, 2000
Dinh US 6,019,789 Feb. 1, 2000
Ndondo-Lay US 6,273,908 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
Based on these references, the Examiner entered the following rejections:
1) Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ley in view
of Hojeibane or Dinh; and
2) Claims 3, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ley and Hojeibane or
Dinh in view of Ndondo-Lay.
Additionally, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13 stand provisionally
rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-3 of Das ‘318 in view of Hojeibane.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013