Appeal 2006-0899
Application 09/912,290
In other words, anticipation requires that claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 on appeal “read
on” something disclosed in the single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 U.S.P.Q. 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Here, we concur with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 read on
something described in Brandt. We find that Brandt illustrates an
intermediate mineral fiber insulation product (which may be formed from
cutting a mineral fiber insulation web through imaginary lines 20 and 22
(thus, removing folds)) and a mineral fiber insulation products employing
such intermediate product. See Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11 in conjunction with
page 29. We find that the claims embrace either the intermediate or final
fiber insulation product described and illustrated in Brandt. Compare, e.g.,
Brandt’s Figures 8 and 9 with Figure 6 of the subject application.
Specifically, as found by the Examiner at pages 3 and 4, Brandt’s
intermediate fiber insulation product having no folds employed in the final
insulation product corresponds to the claimed resilient fibrous insulation
batt.
Rather than challenging the Examiner’s every factual finding at pages
3 and 4 of the Answer, the Appellants focus only on the two claimed
features. See Brief at 7-9. That is, the Appellants only argue that Brandt
does not teach or suggest the claimed randomly oriented and entangled
fibers and the claimed direction of such fibers with respect to the planes of
the major, end and lateral surfaces. Id. We do not agree.
First, we find nothing in the specification, which would distinguish
the claimed blanket made of randomly oriented and entangled fibers from
the mineral fiber insulation web described in Brandt. (See the specification
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007