Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
lacks merit. Like Rohrlach’s panel, the claimed invention
encompasses structures in which the “porous substrate” is
completely penetrated by and embodied within a foam.
(Specification, page 9, lines 7-15; Figure 7.) Nothing in the
language of the appealed claims or the description in the
specification limits the claimed invention to those structures
in which the “porous substrate” must retain its porosity after
the foam penetrates the openings of the “porous substrate.”
The appellants contend that Rohrlach’s “sheet of glass
fibre 24 is never actually bonded directly to the foam layer...”
(italics added). (Appeal brief, page 6.) We note, however,
that appealed claims 1 and 2 do not recite any requirement for a
direct bond between the porous substrate and the skin material.
In this regard, we note that the appealed claims recite the term
“comprising.” In claim drafting, the term “comprising” not only
alerts potential infringers that the recited components are
essential, but that other unrecited components may be present
and still form a construct within the scope of the claim. See,
e.g., In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA
1981).
Regarding appealed claim 2, the appellants allege:
“[B]ecause the foam layer (partly cellular high density lamina
12) is ‘at least partially set’ before placement of the sheet of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007