Appeal No. 2004-1854 Application No. 08/971,851 score lines, e.g., across the length or width, as long as the score lines function for their intended benefits, absent a showing of unexpected results (Answer, page 4). With regard to the rejection of claims 19 and 20, the examiner applies JP ‘313 as evidence that the use of intumescent material for the sheet material was well known in the art (Answer, page 6). With regard to the rejection of claims 29-31 and 39-41, the examiner applies Corn as evidence that an oval shape of the pollution control element was well known in the art (id.). Appellants argue that the grooves or “continuous concaves 1a” of JP ‘916 extend only in the length direction of the sheet material, rather than across its width as required by the claims on appeal (Brief, page 9). Appellants point out that the PTO translation specifically states that “grooves 1a are continuously provided onto both surfaces of a seal mat 1 in the longer lateral direction” (Brief, sentence bridging pages 9-10). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As noted by the examiner (Answer, page 9), a reference disclosure is not limited to its specific examples or embodiments. See In re Widmer, 353 F.2d 752, 757, 147 USPQ 518, 523 (CCPA 1965). JP ‘916 discloses that Fig. 1 is a perspective view of “an embodiment of the present invention” (page 3, second full paragraph). “[A]ll of the relevant 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007