Appeal No. 95-4846
Application 08/023,592
column 8, lines 9-15). In other words, the ends 14 of the
propeller in Figure 14 of Hoppe have a high density while the
inner portion 15 has a low density.2
“[E]very limitation positively recited in a claim must be
given effect in order to determine what subject matter that claim
defines.” See In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548
(CCPA 1970). The order of casting the polyurethane resins to
form an inner and outer portion of the impeller having different
flexibilities is a limitation recited in appealed claim 14 and
must be given effect. As conceded by the examiner, Hoppe
discloses and teaches an order of casting directly the opposite
of the claimed order. However, the examiner additionally cites
Probst and Roberts to show “the formation of composite articles
of multiple layers having different physical and chemical
characteristics from each other ... was generally well known and
conventional in the art” (answer, page 5).
Roberts is directed to a rigid decorative article that has a
pliable outer plastics layer and an essentially rigid interior
(abstract, column 1, lines 27-41, and claim 1). The product of
The examiner has not addressed the correlation of density with2
flexibility and hardness but presumably the density of the polyurethane
correlates with the hardness and inversely correlates with the flexibility.
See appellant’s specification, page 5, second full paragraph.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007