Appeal 2007-2783
Reexamination 90/005,509
Patent 5,533,499
within the entire space between opposite portions of the side edges. That
interpretation is overly narrow and not the broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. The language of claim 53 does not require
the adhesive void to extend exhaustingly from end to end or from edge to
edge. The adhesive void need only extend between the edges, that is, exist
somewhere between the edges, as it does in the case of Iriarte’s Figure 2.
The presence of adhesive along the peripheral edges does not negate the fact
that there is an adhesive void in the central region between the edges.
It is noted that the patentee’s specification does not even contain
written description of an adhesive void that extends from edge to edge. In
column 5, lines 9-11, it is stated, with reference to Figure 6, that “the padded
element 48 creates an absorbent adhesive void between the truss member 16
and the bridge 58. From Figure 6, because of the cross-sectional view, it is
impossible to tell whether the padded element 48 extends fully from the top
edge to the bottom edge of the truss. There is also no text in the disclosure
to the effect that the padded element fills the entire space between the top
and bottom edges of the truss. It cannot simply be assumed that it does.
For the foregoing reasons, the patentee has not shown error in the
rejection of claims 1, 8, 49, and 53 as anticipated by Iriarte under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
The Written Description Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 19-48 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as lacking written description in the specification.
The stated basis for rejecting claim 53 is reproduced below (Answer
4:1-4):
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013