Appeal No. 2000-1799
Application 09/211,473
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Seibold does not disclose the particular heating procedures
recited in claim 12. The examiner argues that Seibold discloses
(col. 4, lines 39-57) that it is desirable to slowly increase the
temperature during the heating steps, and that in view of this
disclosure one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived,
through no more than routine experimentation, at heating
procedures such as those recited in the appellants’ claim 12
(answer, page 5). The appellants do not express any disagreement
with this argument.
The appellants argue that there is no suggestion in Seibold
to allow the resin to gel without applying pressure (brief,
page 5). This argument is not well taken because the appellants’
claim 12 does not recite that the resin is gelled without
applying pressure, and the “comprising” transition term opens the
claim to non-recited steps such as steps in which pressure is
applied. See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802
(CCPA 1981). Accordingly, we affirm the prior art rejection of
claim 12 and claims 13, 14 and 58 which depend therefrom.
Rejection of claims 58 and 58 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues that claims 58 and 59 fail to comply
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007