Appeal No. 2004-1854
Application No. 08/971,851
score lines, e.g., across the length or width, as long as the score
lines function for their intended benefits, absent a showing of
unexpected results (Answer, page 4).
With regard to the rejection of claims 19 and 20, the examiner
applies JP ‘313 as evidence that the use of intumescent material
for the sheet material was well known in the art (Answer, page 6).
With regard to the rejection of claims 29-31 and 39-41, the
examiner applies Corn as evidence that an oval shape of the
pollution control element was well known in the art (id.).
Appellants argue that the grooves or “continuous concaves 1a”
of JP ‘916 extend only in the length direction of the sheet
material, rather than across its width as required by the claims
on appeal (Brief, page 9). Appellants point out that the PTO
translation specifically states that “grooves 1a are continuously
provided onto both surfaces of a seal mat 1 in the longer lateral
direction” (Brief, sentence bridging pages 9-10).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As noted by the
examiner (Answer, page 9), a reference disclosure is not limited to
its specific examples or embodiments. See In re Widmer, 353 F.2d
752, 757, 147 USPQ 518, 523 (CCPA 1965). JP ‘916 discloses that
Fig. 1 is a perspective view of “an embodiment of the present
invention” (page 3, second full paragraph). “[A]ll of the relevant
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007