Appeal No. 2005-0777
Application No. 10/081,881
(2) claims 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over the admitted prior art as shown in Figures 5 through 7 and
described on pages 1-4 of the specification. As described on
pages 1-4 of the specification and shown in Figures 5-7, the
admitted prior art or “conventional lamination apparatus”
(specification, page 1, ll. 21-22) is considered to describe
every limitation of claim 1 on appeal within the meaning of
Section 102(b). This “conventional” apparatus comprises a shaft
8 supporting a core roll 83, with laminate film wound
therearound, and said shaft having a groove 81 on the cylindrical
surface along an axial direction where a rubber cord 82 is fitted
with both ends fixed (specification, page 3, l. 26-page 4, l. 3;
see also Figures 6-7). Therefore, if the rubber cord 82 is “a
deformable tube” within the meaning of claim 1 on appeal, every
claimed limitation is described by the admitted prior art within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326-27, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Implicit in any analysis of a rejection under section 102(b)
is that the claim must first be correctly construed to determine
the proper meaning and scope of any contested limitation. See
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032
(Fed. Cir. 1997). During examination proceedings, claim language
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007