Appeal No. 2000-1623
Application 09/030,385
surface covering is affixed; such an interpretation would be
inconsistent with appellant’s specification and the entire
purpose of appellant’s claimed invention. Rather, in
Johnstonbaugh the surface of the panel is the outer surface of
covering 46, so that the flanges 44, 45 of Johnstonbaugh
engage the surface of the panel rather than being “spaced
outwardly, away from” this surface as required by claim 1.
Since there is no disclosure in Johnstonbaugh of the claimed
spacing, nor any disclosure in Grossen which would have
taught or suggested such spacing, we conclude that claim 1 is
unobvious over the combination of Johnstonbaugh and Grossen.
It follows that dependent claims 2 to 5 are likewise
unobvious.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
The test for compliance with the second paragraph of §
112 is whether, when a claim is read in light of the
specification, one skilled in the art would understand the
bounds of the claim, i.e., would reasonably be apprised of the
scope of the invention. Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997
F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007