Appeal No. 2007-0382
Reexamination 90/007,172
Owner, Cole arguably teaches a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) covering but “this PVC
(vinyl polymer) covering is nowhere described to be a ‘continuous layer’...”
(Appeal Brief at page 4.) Specifically, the Patent Owner asserts that Cole’s
covering would not be “continuous” because the materials forming the covering
are fastened or stitched together. (Appeal Brief at page 6.) With respect to claim
17, which recites a “seamless” continuous layer, the patent owner further contends
that Cole does not teach this limitation and that Cole’s fastening or stitching
“would create a seam.” (Appeal Brief at 7.)
The Examiner, on the other hand, explains that disputed claim terms must be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, taking into account the
accompanying specification, and thus the term “a flexible outer coating forming a
continuous layer that substantially covers the entire top, bottom and side surfaces
of the compressible structure” in appealed claim 1 reads on the type of coverings
described in Cole. (Examiner’s Answer at pages 5-7.) As to claim 17, the
examiner asserts that the “seamless” limitation is insufficient to confer
patentability. (Examiner’s Answer at 7.)
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections as to claims 1-16 but reverse as to
claims 17-20.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013