Appeal No. 2005-1608 Page 6
Application No. 10/424,327
It is reasonable here to conclude that the microporous membrane fabric of the prior art
has the same or substantially similar structure as that of the claimed “pre-shrunk micrporous
membrane fabric.” In this regard we note that the claims include no limitation on how pre-
shrinking is obtained. The specification describes heating the fabric to specific temperatures for
specific times, but such limitations will not be read into the claim. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324-25, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, the claim encompasses a
fabric having properties resulting from any amount of pre-shrinking however minuscule that
amount may be. It is reasonable to conclude that the pre-shrunk structure resulting would be the
same or substantially the same as the structure of the prior art fabric containing PMP hollow
membrane fibers whether shrinking has occurred or not. Note that Appellants acknowledge that
Akasu describes a fabric containing PMP hollow fibers, the same type of fibers claimed
(specification, p. 3, ll. 9-10; see also Akasu, col. 5, ll. 29-33). Anazawa describes a process of
forming hollow fibers such as PMP hollow fibers for membrane use involving extruding,
stretching and heat setting. That some shrinking will occur in PMP fibers is evidenced by
Appellants’ own specification which indicates that the “PMP hollow fibers have a natural
tendency to shrink.” (specification, p. 10).
Appellants argue that neither Akasu nor Anazawa mention anything about a “pre-shrunk
microporous membrane fabric.” (Brief, pp. 6-7). But in determining whether the prior art
teaches or suggests a fabric as claimed, the key question is not whether the references mention
that their membrane fabric is pre-shrunk, it is whether there is a reason to conclude the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007