Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
We next consider the § 102 rejection of claims 13-17 over
either Birbragher or Dhoore. The principal argument advanced by
appellants is that neither reference describes the claimed
"interface sheet having an entire perforated and acoustically
treated surface area." According to appellants, the cited prior
art does "not acoustically treat 100% of the area available"
(page 5 of principal brief, first paragraph). However, since it
is well settled that claim language must be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation during ex parte prosecution, we agree
with the examiner that the claim 13 language at issue does not
require that 100% of the interface sheet be perforated and
acoustically treated. Rather, the examiner has properly held
that the claim language only requires that an area of the
interface sheet, not 100% of the surface area of the interface
sheet, be entirely perforated and acoustically treated. Indeed,
appellants' specification specifically states that "[t]he
hereinafter-described invention allows the entire attachment area
to be treated, except for a narrow edge closeout area" (page 5,
paragraph three). Also, as explained by the examiner, the
disclosure in the references of adding a honeycomb core and an
outer sheet meets the requirement of an acoustically treated
surface area for the interface sheet. As for separately argued
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007