Appeal No. 1998-1075
Application No. 08/701,600
At page 1, ll. 95-116, Holker exemplifies his invention
by use of three glove layers. Although Holker does teach that
the excess gel (i.e., the second material) which had been
forced through the outer layer (of the third glove) “was wiped
off” (page 1, l. 109) before the curable liquid resin was
applied, all three layers or gloves were impregnated with gel
by Holker in this example. The examiner has not established
that the limitation of claim 1 on appeal “wherein the voids
adjacent the coated fibers provide fluid communication from
the first surface of the substrate to the second surface of
the substrate” would have been taught or suggested by this
example of Holker. The examiner has not shown by convincing
evidence or reasoning that the three impregnated gloves of the
product in the Holker example provide fluid communication from
the first or outer surface of the product substrate to the
second or inner surface of the product substrate.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), anticipation requires that the
prior art reference disclose, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, every limitation of the claim. See
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986). For the reasons discussed above, we determine that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007