Appeal No. 2003-0540 Page 8
Application No. 09/737,001
description support for the difference in hardness between the first and second ionomer
resins being at least 5 in Shore D hardness as recited in claims 9 and 10.
It is our opinion that the original disclosure does not provide written description
support for the outer layer of the cover being formed of a first ionomer resin having a
Shore D hardness of 40 to 49 as recited in claims 9 and 10. In that regard, one skilled
in this art would not have envisioned the outer layer of the cover being formed of a first
ionomer resin having a Shore D hardness of 40 to 49 as recited in claims 9 and 10.
Moreover, the original disclosure does not provide written description support for the
following combination of limitations as recited in claims 9 and 10: (a) the outer layer of
the cover being formed of a first ionomer resin having a Shore D hardness of 40 to 50
or 55 and a thickness of at least 0.4 mm; (b) the inner layer of the cover being formed
of a second ionomer resin having a Shore D hardness of 57, 64 or 66 to 68 and higher
than the hardness of the first ionomer resin; and (c) the difference in hardness between
the first and second ionomer resins being at least 5 in Shore D hardness. In that
regard, one skilled in this art would not have envisioned that the appellant possessed
the above-noted combination of limitations.
The case of In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967), is
instructive here. In that case, the court affirmed the holding of the Patent Office Board
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007