Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
A rejection based on section 102(b) for anticipation or lack
of novelty must establish that every limitation of the claimed
subject matter is described, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, by a single reference. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The examiner, as discussed above, has found that Lappala
describes layers corresponding to each layer or component recited
in claim 1 on appeal.1 Appellant argues that Lappala does not
show a structure with stiffening layers and does not relate to
mattress and furniture pads that have sufficient stiffness to
resist bending and telegraphing (Brief, page 5; Reply Brief, page
1). Appellant further argues that Lappala’s unwoven multi-
filamentary rovings 19 or strands 13 are not the “stiffening
layers” required in claim 1 on appeal (Brief, page 6).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Lappala
specifically teaches that “care must be taken to provide an
adequate number of grids or screens for reinforcement of the
1 We note that outer resin film layers 15 and 21 in Figure 3
of Lappala are not required by claim 1 on appeal but are not
excluded from the claim by the “comprising” language recited in
the preamble of claim 1. See Vehicular Techs. v. Titan Wheel
Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d 1841, 1845 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007