Appeal No. 2005-1549
Application No. 10/193,407
First, as acknowledged by the appellants (Brief, page 6),
Enlow teaches employing a face sheet used for manufacturing
plastic parts for an automobile. We find that the face sheet
employed in Enlow is “a semirigid, self-supporting, thin, flat
sheet” made of preferably polyesters. See column 12, lines
48–53, and column 13, lines 15-37. In other words, Enlow’s thin
face sheet is made of the same material as that of the claimed
plastic film sheet. Compare claims 11, 18 and 21 with column 13,
lines 15-37. Thus, we observe no distinction between Enlow’s
face sheet and the claimed plastic film sheet.
In making this observation, we note the appellants’
arguments relating to the treatment (lamination and heating) and
the thickness of Enlow’s face sheet at pages 6 and 8 of the
Brief. These arguments are not convincing since they are not
relevant to the claims on appeal. For example, claims 11, 18 and
21, by virtue of using the transitional term “comprising,” do not
preclude the claimed plastic film sheet from being subjected to
additional treatments, such as lamination and preheating. See In
re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795, 802-03 (CCPA
1981)(“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is
propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term
‘comprises’ permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007