Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
Rohrlach describes a molded panel (e.g., a
vehicle door inner panel) constructed of a substrate
11 of a continuous filament glass reinforcement
penetrated by a crosslinked rigid polyurethane, which
overlies a partly cellular (i.e., foamy) high density
lamina 12 of polyurethane, which in turn is adhered to
a finish face 13. (Figure 1a and 1b; column 1, lines
4-8 and 37-55; column 2, line 44 to column 3, line
20.) According to Rohrlach, the crosslinked rigid
polyurethane that penetrates or embodies the filament
glass substrate 13 [sic, 11] is a foam material.
(Column 1, lines 36-49.)
We further determined that “Rohrlach’s rigid foam material
penetrating or embodying the filament glass substrate 11 bonds
(1) the partly cellular high density lamina 12/finish face 13
structure, which corresponds to the here recited ‘upholstery
skin material,’ to (2) the substrate 11, which corresponds to
the here recited ‘porous substrate.’” (Original decision at 5.)
While the appellants argued that Rohrlach does not describe a
porous substrate as part of the claimed trim member (appeal
brief at 6; reply brief at 1), we were not persuaded by this
argument because the written description of the appellants’
specification (e.g., page 9, lines 7-15; Figure 7) informed one
skilled in the relevant art that structures such as those
described in Rohrlach are encompassed by the appealed claims.
(Original decision at 6-7.) Accordingly, we held that Rohrlach
describes, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), every
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007