Appeal No. 2006-0369 Παγε 16
Application No. 10/225,395
and column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 3 of Urban. As
such, appellant’s teaching away contention is lacking in merit.3
Concerning claim 8, appellants additionally argue that the
claim 8 requirement that the copper foil comprises a thermal
barrier is not taught or suggested by the applied references. In
this regard, appellants maintain that Urban does not discloses or
suggest treating the copper foil thereof so as to comprise a
thermal barrier. That additional argument as to claim 8 is not
persuasive because claim 8 does not require any particular
treatment of the copper foil so as to become a thermal barrier or
specify any particular thermal conductivity inhibition properties
thereof. When the claim does not recite allegedly
distinguishable features, “appellant[s] cannot rely on them to
establish patentability.” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-1351,
3
3 Indeed, the representative claim 27 article is not limited
to a cured article or an article capable of being cured via any
particular curing method. Rather an article including copper
foil, EPDM and a cross-linking agent free of sulfur is recited.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007