Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
material [the polyurethane foam].” Col. 5, ll. 68-71, italics
added. The “stiffening layers” required by claim 1 on appeal
may be any material with stiffness that will offer dimensional
stability to the insulator pad (specification, page 9, ll.
20-21). See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(the examiner must apply to the claim
language the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be construed by one of ordinary
skill in the art, when read in light of the specification). The
“stiffening layers” required by claim 1 on appeal may be the same
material disclosed by Lappala (compare claim 3 on appeal with
Lappala, col. 2, ll. 35-41). Finally, the result of using the
stiffening layers as recited in claim 1 on appeal is to form a
pad “with a sufficient stiffness to resist bending and
telegraphing.” As correctly argued by the examiner (Answer, page
7), the claim is not specific to any degree of stiffness or
resistance to bending and therefore the material of Lappala meets
this limitation since the composite of Lappala would possess at
least some degree of resistance to bending and telegraphing.
For the foregoing reasons and those recited in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established that Lappala
describes every limitation recited in claim 1 within the meaning
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007