Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
interconnect them to the narrow center portions 16 of the cells
12.
(Ley, col. 2, ll. 42-49 and FIGS. 3-4, emphasis removed.)
Notwithstanding, Ley’s detailed disclosure of the relationship between
the cells (segments) and support members (interconnecting bridges) the
majority finds that
Ley discloses the disputed “dip, rise, dip, loop” (see Ley’s Figs.
1, 3 and 4 . . .), in which Ley illustrates the repeating pattern
“dip, rise, dip, raise, loop, dip, rise, dip, rise, loop,” in the form
of a “W”, as indicated by the Examiner (Answer 9). The dips
are labeled 14 and designated “dip,” the rises are not numbered
but are designated “rise,” and the loops are labeled 19 and
designated “loops.”
(Supra 7.)
The problem with this analysis is that what the Examiner and the
majority characterize as “loops” are derived from the support members
(interconnecting bridges) and are not derived from the cells (segments).
Stated differently, in order to arrive at Appellant’s claimed invention the
Examiner and the majority merge the segments and the interconnecting
bridges into one structure and label this hybrid structure a W-shaped
configuration with complete disregard for the structural requirements set
forth in Appellant’s claim 1 and in Ley. The majority admits as much,
asserting that
[t]he loop encompasses an area on each side of the
“circumferentially extending support members,” also
designated 19. (Col. 2, ll. 44-45.) Thus, the loop in Ley’s
figures, relied upon to satisfy the claim language, has a support
member extending from its center and also appears to have a
small indentation where the support member is secured. (See
Figs. 3 & 4.)
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013