Appeal No. 2005-0919
Application No. 10/224,258
such mats “did possess rigidity, as the instantly claimed plastic
panels do (page 3, line 23), there would be no need for a support
structure of any kind” (id. at pages 6-7).
As properly indicated in the answer, these arguments are
unconvincing because they concern features which, though
disclosed in the subject specification, are not recited in
appealed claim 1. We here remind the appellants that it is
claims which define a claimed invention, and it is claims rather
than specifications that are anticipated by a reference.
Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570,
7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892
(1988).
With further regard to the appellants’ argument
concerning buoyancy, it is appropriate to clarify a potential
misimpression created by the brief. Specifically, the
appellants’ discussion of this feature on page 6 of the brief
gives the impression that the claimed plastic panels are
necessarily made buoyant by virtue of the claimed “open and/or
closed cavities” contained in these panels. However,
as clarified by the appellants’ specification (e.g., at lines
6-11 on page 3), it is the closed, not open, cavities which
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007