Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
claim construction would be contrary to the enlightenment found
in the specification. This we cannot do. In re Morris, 127
F.3d at 1054, 44 USPQ2d at 1027 (“[I]t would be unreasonable for
the PTO to ignore any interpretive guidance afforded by the
applicant’s written description...”).
Finally, the appellants argue: “Rohrlach only teaches a
porous substrate that is completely penetrated by a liquid (non-
foam) resin (column 2, lines 44-50)...” (Request at 2.) This
argument is incorrect. According to Rohrlach, the crosslinked
rigid polyurethane that penetrates or embodies the filament
glass substrate 11 is a foam material. (Column 1, lines 36-49.)
Summary
In sum, the appellants’ request for rehearing is granted to
the extent of reconsidering our original decision but is denied
with respect to making any substantive changes thereto.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007