Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
the non-porous combination of the glass fiber reinforcing
materials and the resin) are still porous. The appealed claims,
in particular claim 2, read on such prior art structures.
Nothing in the language of the appealed claims excludes the
presence of resin in all of the spaces constituting the openings
or pores of the substrate. For example, appealed claim 1 does
not recite language such as “wherein the molded foam material
does not occupy all of the openings or pores of the substrate.”
To the contrary, appealed claim 2 broadly recites: “wherein said
substrate comprises a porous fiberous [sic] material having
openings therein, wherein said moldable foam material penetrates
said openings and bonds to said porous material through said
openings.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055-56, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“It is the applicants’ burden to
precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.”).
Also, the subject specification severely undercuts the
appellants’ position. There, the appellants repeatedly disclose
that the claimed invention includes embodiments where resin
advantageously penetrates the openings or pores of the
substrate. (Specification at page 2, lines 10-12; page 5, lines
8-11; page 7, lines 5-7; page 8, line 9 to page 9, line 15;
Figure 7.) Were we to accept the appellants’ arguments, our
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007