Appeal No. 1999-2633
Application 08/680,325
meet the limitation in claim 5 requiring the plurality of
particles to be “discontinuously adhered to the exterior surface
of said closed-cell foam sponge substrate including said
cavities.” According to the appellant, Ebert’s particles are
adhered to the inside profiles of the canals rather than to the
exterior surface of the foam substrate.
Claim 5 defines the foam sponge substrate recited therein as
having “an exterior surface with a plurality of cavities formed
therein.” This definition is consistent with the underlying
specification and drawings which describe and show a surface 11,
including cavities, on the upper side of substrate sponge 10.
Particles 15 are “discontinuously adhered” to this surface,
including the cavities, in the sense “so as not to occupy all of
the surface 11" (specification, page 3). The appellant has not
cogently explained, nor is it apparent, why the upper surface and
canals of Ebert’s web do not collectively constitute an exterior
surface with a plurality of cavities formed therein to the same
extent that the surface 11 on the appellant’s substrate does.
Moreover, given that Ebert’s particles are adhered within the
canals but not to the upper surface, it is not apparent why they
do not constitute a plurality of particles which are
“discontinuously adhered” to the exterior surface of the closed-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007