Appeal No. 2001-0888 Page 5
Application No. 08/790,559
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Though broad, the examiner's interpretation of the claims under
review is not reasonable or consistent with the appellant's specification. For example,
on pages 17-19 of this specification, the appellant discloses an integral (as opposed to
a non-integral or separable) bladder/caul sheet embodiment wherein "a
caul sheet section 44 may be coupled or bonded to a bladder 43 in any suitable
manner, including by pre-fabrication and attachment with adhesive, or by laying up
uncured rubber and uncured prepreg fabric in a mold and then co-curing them
together" (page 19, lines 3-6). Furthermore, this disclosure is consistent with
commonly accepted definitions of the verb "coupled" (e.g., "To link together: connect"
or "To unite chemically;" Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984).
In light of the foregoing, we are convinced that it would be unreasonable and
inconsistent with the appellant's specification disclosure to interpret the here claimed
"coupled" feature as being satisfied by the mere contact which temporarily occurs
between VonVolkli's weaved nylon fabric and boot. It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's prior art rejection of the claims which require this "coupled" feature which
are claims 20-32, 37, 40, 57, and 58.
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claims 38, 39, and 41-44 as being
unpatentable over VonVolkli in view of Lin, we share the examiner's basic conclusion
that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to provide the method
of VonVolkli with a fluid system capable of supplying, not only a vacuum as taught by
patentee but also, pressurized fluid to the mandrel body openings in view of and for the
reasons taught by Lin. An artisan would have been particularly motivated to provide
VonVolkli with this pressurized fluid feature in order to obtain the benefits taught by Lin
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007