Appeal 2006-2998 Application 09/956,524 Appellants argue that even if the surface of Flaugher showed curvature in a second direction transverse to a first direction, Flaugher would not anticipate the present claims because if there were curvature in this direction, the linear rods of Flaugher would, out of necessity, not be substantially of a constant distance from the pressing surface as the distance would vary in accordance with the curvature. We are not convinced by Appellants’ arguments for the following reasons. First, Appellants’ specification does not provide a specific description, e.g., measurements, for defining the term “substantially.” Hence, we turn to the ordinary meaning of this word. As stated by the Examiner on page 5 of the Answer, the word “substantially” encompasses a relatively wide ranges of values. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). In this light, referring to Figure 2 of Flaugher, heating elements 70 are disposed to substantially follow the contoured shape of the pressing surface to maintain a substantially constant distance from the pressing surface of the male mold. We see no difference between that depicted in Figure 2 of Flaugher and that claimed in the last paragraph of Appellants’ claim 1, in light of the claim interpretation discussed herein. Second, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the figures in Flaugher depict a curvature along the longitudinal axis and transverse axis. For example, both drawings of Figure 3 depict such a feature. We do note that the C.C.P.A. has recognized a subtle distinction between a written description adequate to support a claim under §112 and a written description sufficient to anticipate its subject matter under §102(b). The difference between "claim-supporting disclosures" and "claim-anticipating disclosures" 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007