Interference No. 103,036
pocket, especially where the specification does not teach that
the chamber, cell or bubble is formed under a vacuum. One
skilled in the art would appreciate that air must be present in
the chamber, cell, or bubble because of its manufacture at
standard conditions (temperature and pressure) and that the air
pocket in the chamber, cell, or bubble of the device 10D would
also supply some thermal insulation. Accordingly, we hold that
the Burroughs specification contains a sufficient written
description within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for the "air pocket" limitation of reissue claims 30
to 32 and 40.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied as to
item 7.
In item 8, the motion urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not contain a written description for the
"thermal insulation" limitation of reissue claims 33 to 40 and 43
to 49. Since claims 34 and 38 were canceled, this item will be
treated as to claims 33, 35 to 37, 39, 40 and 43 to 49. The
motion relies upon the testimony of Dr. Feder at CR 66 to 68.
The motion is denied for the reasons set forth above with respect
to items 5 and 6, supra.
In item 9, the motion urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not contain a written description for the
“label" limitation of reissue claims 33 to 40, and 43. Since
-51-
Page: Previous 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007