Appeal No. 98-2156 Page 11
Application No. 08/421,489
reasonable interpretation, we are of the opinion that the box4
of Kiley can be considered to be molded as claimed.
The appellant argues that Kiley does not teach or suggest
a hinge that is "essentially free of pores," (claim 15), has
cell walls that are plasticated (claim 16), has a thickness
less than 0.060 inches (claims 16 and 17) and is "solid"
(claim 17). Kiley, however, states that:
The effect of mechanical die-scoring on the
material of the present invention is depicted in
FIG. 5 which shows the upper 14 and lower 16 die
components which compress the panel material to form
the inner 18 and outer 20 depressions of the
resulting die-score. Also shown is an enlarged,
graphically depicted cross-section of the subject
material revealing the macrocellular 52 nature of
its interior. [Column 6, lines 30-37.]
Viewing Fig. 5 of Kiley, in the region of the depressions 18
and 20 (i.e., the hinge structure) the foamed polyetheylene
material is depicted as being very significantly compressed
and the large macrocells 52 are conspicuously absent in this
4It is well settled that the terminology in a pending
application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations
from a pending application's specification will not be read
into the claims (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6
USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007