Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 7
Application No. 08/366,988
separately the patentability of dependent claim 25, they
merely refer to “the same reasons as given above for claim 5,”
(id. at 20), from which the former claim depends. Therefore,
claims 5, 17, and 25 stand or fall together in a third group;
we select claim 5 to represent the third group. With these
representations in mind, we address the obviousness of the
claims.
The appellants make three arguments. First, they
argue, “Koitabashi, et al. reference ... disclose only a
single absorbing material 2003. There is no disclosure in the
Koitabashi, et al. reference of first and second materials in
surface-to-surface contact ....” (Appeal Br. at 9.) The
examiner responds, “Koitabashi et al teaches that the
‘absorbing material 2003 is separated into three parts, and is
compressed beforehand, and thereafter, it is accommodated
therein’ to meet the limitation as claimed.” (Examiner’s
Answer at 3.)
“Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of
and are read in light of the specification.” Slimfold Mfg.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007