Appeal No. 2003-1349 Page 8
Application No. 09/768,969
Our above determination that Bulzomi's reflective material (6), such as
perforated aluminum foil, inherently reflects internally generated heat inwardly into the
cavity as well as reflecting externally generated heat outwardly away form the wearer's
foot is based on (1) the known reflective properties of aluminum foil; (2) Oatman's
teaching that a thin film of aluminum is used as a heat reflecting material in a heat
insulting insert for footwear; and (3) the appellant's teaching (page 8 of the
specification) that the radiant barrier can be made from a variety of materials such as
metal foil, metallized textiles or metallized flexible polymeric material.2
As noted above, Bulzomi does teach all the limitations of claim 9. While this is,
in effect, a holding that claim 9 is anticipated by Bulzomi under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
affirmance of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is appropriate, since it is well settled that a
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v.
Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
2 While the appellant discloses that the preferred radiant barrier comprises two thin sheets of
aluminum foil, extruded polymer and a reinforcing scrim, the claimed radiant barrier is not limited to this
preferred embodiment. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the USPTO, claims in an application are
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and that claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d
1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007