Appeal No. 1998-1768
Application No. 08/403,826
within the scope of the appealed claims which serves to rebut
the reasonable inference that the foam of Bocks is spray-
resistant. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Also, as noted by
the examiner, appellants have not defined the claimed
property, spray-resistant, in any quantitative terms such that
any spray resistance exhibited by the foams of Bocks would
meet the claim limitation.
Turning to the separate rejections over Reischl and Orr,
the examiner has committed the reversible error of not
recognizing and giving consideration to a claim limitation,
namely, the recited density of the foam of 400 to 700 g/liter.
To wit, the examiner states at page 6 of the Answer that "the
claims are devoid of density limitations" and "the claims are
not limited to any particular density." As a result, the
examiner has not met the initial burden of demonstrating how
Reischl and Orr describe or render obvious the claimed
density. As pointed out by appellants, Reischl exemplifies
foams having a density considerably less than the claimed
density, whereas Orr exemplifies a foam having a density, 8
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007