Appeal No. 2001-1622 Page 10
Application No. 09/226,969
sunlight from entering the body of water to thereby inhibit
growth of algae in the body of water.
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 7-8) that the
claimed two opaque layers were readable on Wilson's layers 16
and 18. We do not agree. While Wilson's layer 16 is opaque
(see column 3, line 1), we find no disclosure in Wilson that
layer 18 is opaque. While Wilson teaches (column 3, lines2
56-58) that layer 18 has a thermal conductivity which is
comparable to that of layer 16, this does not mean that layer
18 is opaque since layer 16 is opaque.
Since all the limitations of claims 12 to 14 are not
found in Wilson for the reasons set forth above, the decision
of the examiner to reject claims 12 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is reversed.
2In our view, the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, of the term "opaque" is
"impervious to the passage of light" as set forth in the first
definition thereof in The American Heritage Dictionary, Second
College Edition, (1982).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007