Appeal No. 1997-3096
Application 08/391,407
at least any thermoplastic elastomer that is substantially filled with any inorganic filler which can
function as a “deflector” for water and sound when formed into a flat and flexible “sheet,” and
with respect to claim 16, must be flat and flexible, wherein this language is not limited in scope
to any thermoplastic elastomer blended with a “low density” polyethylene that is substantially
filled with any inorganic filler.
With respect to claims 34 and 35, each of these claims depends directly or ultimately on
claim 31, the language of which we interpreted above. Claim 34 depends on claim 33, which in
turn depends on claim 31. Claim 33 specifies that the “sheet of elastomeric material is generally
flat,” wherein the term “generally” would have its customary meaning that we found above (see
above pp. 7-8). Claim 34 adds the limitation that “said sheet is selectively deformed to conform
to surface irregularities on said door,” which we read for purposes of this appeal as “said sheet is
selectively deformed to conform to surface irregularities on the inner panel of a vehicle door.”7
As set forth above, we interpret the language the “sheet” of material has “a peripheral shape
generally matching the peripheral configuration of the inner panel” in claim 31 to include within
its scope such a vast range of shapes and dimensions as to be almost limitless for all practical
intents and purposes, and the “sheet” of elastomeric material can be flexible. With respect to the
interpretation to be made of claim 34 in this context, we find that while this claim is directed to
the intended use of the “sheet” of elastomeric material, the language of this claim must be given
weight in order to give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention, but the claimed
article is not limited to such “application” (see above pp. 6-7). Thus, we interpret claim 34 to
encompass a sheet of elastomeric material which can function as a “deflector” for water and
sound, that has been flexed, stretched, compressed or otherwise shape-altered to fit an inner panel
for a vehicle door as desired, to the extend that the sheet of elastomeric material remains
“generally flat” as required by claim 33.
In similar manner to claim 34, we read claim 35 for purposes of this appeal as a “sheet”
7 Claim 31 as amended in the amendment of October 27, 1995 (Paper No. 6) does not provide
antecedent basis for “said door” in claim 34. Thus, claim 34 is indefinite under § 112, second
paragraph. In the same manner as above (see above note 6), we avoid piecemeal appellate review
by arriving at a reasonable, conditional interpretation of claim 34 based on the specification (e.g.,
page 4) in order to resolve prior art issues without unsupported speculative assumptions.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007