Appeal No. 1999-0615
Application No. 08/786,974
page 10) and pointed to the expansion chamber (11) of Farison
as being readable on the claimed terminology. However, since
there is no indication in Farison that the expansion chamber
(11) therein includes any agitating structure like that seen
in Figures 2 through 7 of the application and described on
pages 11 through 13 of appellant's specification, or is in any
way capable of providing agitation of the foam to mechanically
expand the foam subsequent to its formation, it is clear to us
that the expansion chamber of Farison is not the same as or
the equivalent of the apparatus for expanding the foam
disclosed in appellant's specification and thus is not
readable under
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, as the "means for expanding"
in appellant's claim 1 or as responding to the step of
"expanding" in appellant's claim 12. Accordingly, for this
additional reason we find that the examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 12 based on the teachings of Good,
Farison and Stults, and the claims which depend therefrom, is
not sustainable.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 6 through 9 and
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007