Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
The appellants argue: “[B]efore impregnation with the
moldable polyurethane, the partly cellular high density lamina
12 does not bond finish face 13 to the sheet of glass fibre 24.”
(Appeal brief, page 6.) The appellants, however, have not
identified any evidence to support the conclusion that “the
partly cellular high density lamina 12 does not bond finish face
13 to the sheet of glass fibre.” Neither the appealed claims
nor the specification places any limitation on the degree of
“bonding” required. In any event, we find that the rigid foam
polyurethane penetrating or embodying the filament glass
substrate 11 bonds the partly cellular high density lamina
12/finish face 13 structure to the substrate 11.
The appellants urge that “after impregnation of the sheet
of glass fibres 24 with the moldable polyurethane, there is
provided a resulting substrate that fails to meet the
requirement for a porous substrate.” (Appeal brief, page 6.)
Further, the appellants allege: “The facts that the foam
material partially penetrates the pore structure to bond to the
substrate does not mean that the substrate is fully impregnated
or encompassed by the foam.” (Reply brief, page 1.) As pointed
out by the examiner (answer, page 6), the appellants’ position
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007