Appeal No. 2005-1574
Application 09/753,428
(b) about 10 to about 100 parts by weight of a natural cellulosic product;
(c) about 0.5 to about 10 parts by weight of vinyl chloride resin foaming agent;
B.) mixing the aforesaid mixture in a hot mixer with frictionally induced heating to
temperatures of about 80 degrees Celsius up to about 140 degrees Celsius and below the fusion
temperature of polyvinyl chloride;
C.) subsequently mixing the mixture from said hot mixer in a cold mixer while cooling
said mixture to a temperature of about 25 degrees Celsius up to about 60 degrees Celsius;
D.) plastifying and extruding the mixture through a plastifying and extruding means;
and,
E.) slowly cooling extruded product to create a synthetic wood-like product having an
external foam skin and a foam core, wherein said cooling is performed in a roller system of a
plurality of contra-rotating rollers, said synthetic wood-like product having a surface embossed
texture and having a Shore Hardness of at least about 50 D-scale, as measured according to
ASTM 2240.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Cope 5,951,927 Sep. 14, 1999
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 21 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Cope
(answer, pages 3-4).
Appellants group the appealed claims as rejected (brief, pages 5-6). Thus, we decide this
appeal based on appealed claim 21. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003); see also 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).
We affirm the ground of rejection under § 103(a) and reverse the ground of rejection
under § 102(b). Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
Our consideration of the application of Cope to claim 21 requires that we first interpret
the claim language of this claim by giving the claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, as
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, without reading into the claim any limitation or
particular embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007