Appeal No. 2002-1838
Application 09/631,765
and General Tire). Thus, it is apparent that the stated rejections
stand or fall on the propriety of the rejection over Latone
considered with Dowlen et al. Accordingly, we shall first consider
the examiner's rejection of the claims over the combination of
Latone considered with Dowlen et al.
We begin by determining the scope and content of appellants'
claims because it is the claims which define the protection for
which appellants seek a patent. United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith
Co., 317 U.S. 228, 232, 55 USPQ 381, 383-384 (1942) (citing General
Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 37 USPQ
466, 468-469 (1938); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 322, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); SRI Int'l. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,
775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 586 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
Claim 17, appellants' only independent claim is directed to
"an assembly for cleaning a toner apparatus" and the assembly is
defined as one "comprising" two elements: a porous member
impregnated with a paste comprising a silicone copolymer; and, a
rigid member with a supporting base on which said porous member is
mounted. According to appellants' specification, the first element,
the "porous member", is preferably a low density urethane foam. See
page 6, lines 24 through 26 and Figure 2, element 14. Useful
properties for the foam are described at page 7, lines 8 through 11
of the specification. The "paste comprising a silicone copolymer"
is described at page 4, line 8 through page 5, line 4 and page 8,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007