Appeal No. 2005-0919
Application No. 10/224,258
flat, rectangular piece (mat 19) forming a part of a surface in
which it is set, and being framed (pipe 12 and plurality of bands
13 in fig. 3)” and accordingly that “Kuriyama . . . disclose[s] a
‘panel’” (answer, pages 3-4).2
In support of their patentability viewpoint, the appellants
state that “[t]he instantly claimed plastic panels are
lightweight, yet rigid because of the buoyancy resulting from the
presence of open and/or closed cavities therein” (brief, page 6)
and argue that “the non-woven, fibrous mats disclosed by Kuriyama
. . . would fail to exhibit buoyancy as there are no structures
within the non-woven, fibrous mats which are capable of trapping
air as the instantly claimed open and/or closed cavities do
within the instantly claimed plastic panel” (id.). The
appellants also argue that “the non-woven, fibrous mats disclosed
[by Kuriyama] possess little or no rigidity” (id.) and that if
2
2The appellants also cite definitions of “panel” (see the
paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the brief and Exhibit B
attached to the brief) which include the examiner’s above quoted
definition. Referral to these dictionary definitions is
particularly appropriate in this case since the appellants’
specification provides no definition of the term “panel.”
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007