Appeal No. 2002-0552
Application No. 09/117,603
substitute the epoxy/coal-tar corrosion inhibiting coating
material of Arnett for the sealant (10) in the electrical housing
or connector of Suzuki, the result would not be a housing
arrangement like that claimed by appellant.
In our opinion, appellant's use of "pure tar" in claim 3 on
appeal limits that claim to a tar material, e.g., roofing tar,
that is essentially pure and, at most, includes some small
proportion of impurities that would not materially affect the
basic characteristics of the tar distillate itself. The
examiner's attempt to read "pure tar" as broadly being "a
substance in some respects resembling tar," like the epoxy-based
coating material of Arnett, is far too reaching and clearly
beyond the bounds of what appellant's claim 3 is limited to.
Moreover, we share appellant's view that the examiner's
attempt to substitute the epoxy-based, corrosion resistant
coating material of Arnett, used to combat cathodic delamination
of underwater rubber-to-metal adhesive bonds, for the sealer (10)
located within the housing (2) of the electrical connector in
Suzuki constitutes an improper hindsight reconstruction founded
on information the examiner has derived only from appellant's own
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007