Appeal No. 98-0111
Application No. 08/290,213
be rigid, but that it be “substantially rigid” (emphasis
added). Thus, our first observation is that this argument
must fail because it is predicated upon a limitation that is
not present in the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). Moving now to a comparison
of the claim language recited with Taylor, we first note that
the only guidance given for “substantially,” which is a term
of degree, is the statement on page 8 of the specification
that the liner members be
formed of a substantially rigid material, such as
any suitable high density moldable thermoplastic
material, e.g., polyethylene, which provides sturdy,
reliable resistance to cutting, puncture, abrasion,
and other damage from various cargo materials, while
also providing a sufficient degree of flexibility
and resiliency to permit the respective ribs 30 and
channels 32 . . . to fit securely and matingly into
one another.
Taylor describes his invention as being “a thin-walled
flexible liner adapted to conform to the configuration of a
container and to be self-supporting therein when empty for
[sic, and for] at least a portion of its height when full”
(column 1, lines 68-71, emphasis added), which can be made of
“resinous plastic films or sheets formed from various
thermoplastic materials” (column 2, lines 62 and 63).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007